Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CARDIFF EXTENSION BILL

IPSWICH DOCK BILL

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

DOVER HARBOUR BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

GLOUCESTER EXTENSION BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered.

Amendment proposed to the Bill, in page 13, line 6, to leave out subsection (3).—[Mr. MacColl.]

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

Objection being taken to further Proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed on Tuesday next at Seven o'clock.

LEITH HARBOUR AND DOCKS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

MERCHANTS HOUSE OF GLASGOW (CREMATORIUM) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

GRANTON HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

GREENOCK PORT AND HARBOURS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Teachers Superannuation (War Service)

Mr. Storey: asked the Minister of Education the amount outstanding at 1st April, 1950, on account of late contributions for war service under the Teachers (Superannuation) Acts, 1918–46 and the Teachers Superannuation (War Service) Act, 1939; over what period these contributions have to be repaid; and to how much the interest to be charged in accordance with circular letter, R.P. 39/317, of 21st June, 1950, amounts.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson): The outstanding war service contributions from teachers and employers in the cases so far reported to my Department amount to a sum of the order of £200,000. As regards the rest of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Hylton-Foster) on 6th of this month, a copy of which I am sending him. I will write to the hon. Member when the technical issues have been further examined.

Mr. Storey: Why has the right hon. Gentleman suddenly decided to make this exaction, which makes so little difference to the Treasury and so much to ex-Service men in a profession which is so poorly paid? Why were these teachers not notified of the possibility of such a claim being made when contributions on account of war service were funded?

Mr. Tomlinson: I understand that all these were not only within the realm of the law but that the teachers were informed.

Mr. George Thomas: Is the Minister aware that 4 per cent. compound interest is being asked from these people, and will he not do something to reduce the rate of interest?

Mr. Tomlinson: That relates to he latter part of the Question, which I am looking into.

Dental Service, London

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Education what steps are taken in the London area to provide


temporary replacements for school dental officers absent from duty on account of leave or indisposition.

Mr. Tomlinson: I understand that the London County Council and other local education authorities do not as a rule find it practicable to employ substitutes for dental officers who are temporarily absent. In these circumstances, emergency cases in London are usually referred to the nearest available clinic, or, if the absence is prolonged, arrangements may be made for the dental officer of another clinic to attend once or twice a week for emergency work.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, to quote one example, the Brixton treatment centre, which is normally open for 11 sessions weekly, has had to close completely because the dentist is away ill and that the present 10 weeks' waiting list in nearby centres is bound to increase as a consequence?

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, I am aware of the difficulties. I think the House knows the difficulties of the school dental service, and that we are doing all we can to expedite a solution of the problem which will enable us to put the service on a better footing.

Deaf Children, Wales

Mr. Watkins: asked the Minister of Education what arrangements are being made for the education of deaf children in Wales by the Joint Education Committee of Wales.

Mr. Tomlinson: The Glamorganshire local education authority, acting on behalf of the Welsh Joint Education Committee, is negotiating for the acquisition of premises in Llandrindod Wells for use as a school for deaf children. I have approved the proposal in principle and am awaiting particulars for final approval. The children at present attending the Royal Cambrian School for the Deaf—of whom there are about 80—will be transferred and it is expected that the premises will also provide some 120 additional places.

Schools (Propaganda)

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Minister of Education whether he is aware that Communist propaganda is

being taught in many schools; and if he will issue a circular insisting that all such propaganda ceases forthwith.

Mr. Tomlinson: It is a long established and well understood rule that teachers should not use their position to propagate their political views in the course of instruction. I have no evidence that this rule is being broken, but if the hon. and gallant Member has any particular case in mind and will let me have information I will investigate it.

Major Beamish: If I give the Minister a copy of the text book I hold in my hand called "Life in the U.S.S.R." written by Mrs. Beatrice King, well known for her Communist associations, will he undertake to have this book withdrawn immediately from circulation, since it is Communist propaganda at its worst? Is it not a shocking and scandalous thing that the British taxpayer should pay for this subversive propaganda which is being taught to our children in the schools?

Mr. Tomlinson: If the book is drawn to my notice, I will certainly look at it. I would point out that it was published in 1944, when people were saying different things about the U.S.S.R. from what they are saying today; but if it is being used for propaganda purposes, and I can find evidence of that, I will certainly inquire into it.

Mr. Ralph Morley: Is the Minister aware that the question of the hon. and gallant Member constitutes a gross reflection on the professional integrity of the teachers of this country, and that all teachers are united in condemning any attempt at political propaganda in the schools, whether it be Communist propaganda or Conservative propaganda?

Mr. Nigel Fisher: Does not the Minister agree that it would have been a shocking thing to him to have found that 2,000 teachers in State schools in 1939 were members of the British Union of Fascists, and does he not find it equally shocking that today there are the same number at least, and probably more, Communist teachers in the State run schools of this country?

Mr. Tomlinson: I have not made any inquiries as to the number of people who profess various political beliefs; it is no part of my business to do so.

Mr. Chetwynd: Would my right hon. Friend be careful not to interfere with the selection of text books, but to leave that to the responsibility of the teachers concerned?

Mr. Tomlinson: I have no authority to interfere with text books.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: Is the Minister aware that Mrs. Beatrice King, who is the author of this pamphlet, is a leading member of the executive of the British Soviet Society and that she was chairman of its women's organisation last year? Is the Minister further aware that this Society is condemned and proscribed by his own party, and if it is not thought fitting and good that Socialists should have any contact with it, is it not worse that children should have their minds polluted by this insidious form of propaganda?

Mr. Tomlinson: No single point that has been mentioned by the hon. Member has anything to do with the Question on the Paper.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether this book was not issued at a time when there was a Conservative Minister of Education?

Mr. Kirkwood: It was.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: We had better get on with the next Question.

Major Beamish: On a point of order. In view of the fact that this book is still in wide circulation and use, and in view of the extremely unsatisfactory nature of the replies by the Minister, I give notice that I propose to raise this matter as soon as possible.

Swimming Instruction

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Education if, in view of the inadequacy of the statistics hitherto kept as to what facilities exist for the teaching of swimming to pupils of State schools, he will collect and publish periodically figures showing the proportions of these pupils who can and cannot swim, respectively, and at what ages.

Mr. Tomlinson: No, Sir. My Department do not keep statistics about the teaching of swimming or of any other subject of the curriculum, and I do not consider the value of the results would be in

proportion to the manpower which would be involved or to the extra burden which would be thrown on the teachers.

Mr. Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the importance of the teaching of swimming has been much neglected in the training of youth in the past and that the publication of such statistics would have a very beneficial result? Would he therefore reconsider his decision not to collect and publish these valuable statistics?

Mr. Tomlinson: I do not think the issuing of statistics would have the slightest effect upon that. The circular which I issued in January, 1946, gives, I think, all the encouragement that I can to the teaching of swimming in the schools.

Mr. Hughes: Is a copy of that circular available in the Library? If not, will the Minister put a copy there?

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes.

Mr. Anthony Nutting: Before the Minister goes any further in this matter, will he take the precaution of consulting the Minister of National Insurance?

Sub-Normal Children, Cheshire

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: asked the Minister of Education what arrangements have been made in Ellesmere Port, Cheshire, for the education and training of sub-normal children.

Mr. Tomlinson: The arrangements for educationally sub-normal children in Ellesmere Port form part of the general arrangements made by the Cheshire local education authority for the county as a whole. The majority of the children receive special educational treatment in the ordinary schools, but those who need to be educated in a special school are sent to the authority's residential school at Alderley Edge. The training of ineducable children is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health.

Examinations

Mr. Hollis: asked the Minister of Education what representations were made to him at the time of the report of the Secondary School Examination Council, pleading for a reconsideration of the new examination policy; and by whom were those representations made.

Mr. Tomlinson: When I received the Council's report and before I had come to any decisions about their recommendations, I sought the views of the major educational bodies, including the local education authority associations, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors, the National Union of Teachers, the Joint Four, the Headmasters' Conference and other principal teachers' associations. Further, when I had received and considered their views, I sought their comments on the draft of a circular setting out the conclusions to which I had come. Particular aspects of the Council's proposals were criticised but, taken as a whole, their proposals were favourably received.

Mr. Hollis: asked the Minister of Education whether he will permit the General Certificate examination to be held twice in the year.

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir, and some examining bodies are in 1951 conducting two examinations at the ordinary level.

Teachers' Salaries

Mr. Hollis: asked the Minister of Education whether, when he approves any increase of salaries to teachers that may be recommended by the Burnham Committee, he will make that increase retrospective.

Mr. Tomlinson: I am not prepared to make any statement on teachers' salaries until I have received and considered the recommendations of the Burnham Committee.

Mr. Hollis: While I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman does not think it wise to interfere with the independent machinery for settling teachers' salaries, may I ask if he will bear in mind that the proposal which I have put in the Question would go far to allay their anxiety if they felt that they could have this hope of retrospection—as civil servants receive it?

Mr. Tomlinson: I do not understand an appreciation of the Minister's difficulties which insists upon adding to them.

Oral Answers to Questions — BECHUANALAND (ARRESTS)

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether his attention has been drawn to the arrest of several leading tribesmen in Bechuanaland for practising non-co-operation with the authorities as a demonstration of their support for Seretse Khama; and whether he will make a statement on the matter.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I am informed that two arrests only have taken place. One headman has been convicted for inciting the people not to pay tax and not to bring their cattle for inspection for foot and mouth disease. He has appealed from a sentence of six months' imprisonment and has been allowed bail. In the other case a headman has been convicted for inciting the people not to pay tax. His sentence has been postponed for six months on condition that he refrains from further acts of incitement.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Nylon Stockings

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that there is a shortage of nylon stockings and ladies' gloves in the retail shops of Aberdeen; and if he will take steps to increase the supply of these much-desired articles of apparel to that city.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): The shortage of nylon stockings in relation to the demand for them is not confined to Aberdeen. I am not aware of any shortage of women's gloves and understand that in fact some of the Aberdeen shops have large stocks of these.

Mr. Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend able to promise some improvement in ladies' sartorial styles, at least in the Festival of Britain year?

Mr. Wilson: I cannot make any such rash promises. The supply of nylon stockings to the home market is increasing, and I am at present inquiring into the whole question of their distribution.

Mr. Spence: Would the President of the Board of Trade consider restricting


the supplies of nylons which go to the spivs in Oxford Street, and see that they go to the shops?

Mr. Wilson: As the hon. Member will realise, the distribution of nylons is undertaken by private enterprise and not by my Department. I have, however, called for a report on the whole question of distribution and I hope to have something to say about it in due course.

Mr. Osborne: Is the Minister aware that many machines which were imported from America with Marshall Aid dollars for the specific purpose of manufacturing nylon stockings are now having to use other material because nylon yarn is not available? When will the Minister make more nylon yarn available, so that the machines we already have can be fully used?

Mr. Wilson: When I get enough polymer from Imperial Chemical Industries and enough nylon yarn from the British nylon spinners.

Mrs. Jean Mann: asked the President of the Board of Trade the retail prices of first, second and third-quality nylon stockings; and what measures are taken to ensure correct prices for each quality.

Mr. H. Wilson: The statutory maximum retail prices of nylon stockings range from 6s. 9d. a pair for utility seamless stockings to 12s. 11d. (including Purchase Tax) for fully-fashioned non-utility stockings, except for the very finest quality, made from 15 denier yarn and so marked, for which the maximum price is 17s. 6d. (including Purchase Tax). When a utility stocking fails to comply with the specification laid down by the Board of Trade it must be marked "substandard" and the manufacturer may not charge more than 50 per cent. of his maximum price.
There are no separate maximum prices for "seconds" and "thirds," these being terms commonly used by the trade to describe imperfect stockings. I understand that it is the practice of manufacturers to sell imperfect stockings at lower prices than "perfects."

Mrs. Mann: Can my right hon. Friend indicate how the purchaser can be protected in regard to prices? Will he insist on the prices being stamped on the stockings as they leave the factory?

Mr. Wilson: I shall be glad to look into that, but I can see a lot of difficulties.

Mrs. Mann: If I submit to my right hon. Friend samples which have been sent to me from my constituents, will he investigate the prices and quality?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir. I will certainly be prepared to look at any evidence my hon. Friend sends me.

Mrs. Mann: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many pairs of first-quality nylon stockings are reserved for the home market; and how many pairs of seconds and thirds.

Mr. H. Wilson: The total supply of nylon stockings to the home market is now at a rate of about 24 million pairs a year. As regards the proportion of "perfects" in this supply, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) on 13th July.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: By way of solving this problem on a more or less permanent footing, will my right hon. Friend do his best to encourage and make more fashionable the use of lisle stockings as an alternative?

Mrs. Mann: Since the supply of nylon has so greatly increased, has my right hon. Friend made any arrangement for additional timber for the under-the-counter trade in nylons?

Mr. Wilson: I have made clear that I have already called for a report on the distribution of nylons, with a view to seeing that the available supplies are distributed as fairly as possible.

Mr. Maudling: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange to make suitable samples available in the Library?

Mr. Dodds: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many prosecutions against offenders for selling imperfect nylon stockings at excessive prices have been initiated by his Department.

Mr. H. Wilson: During the first six months of this year there were 85 prosecutions for overcharging for nylon stockings, but I am unable to say how many of these concerned imperfect goods.

Mr. Dodds: In view of the able-bodied "spivs" to be seen every day on the London streets, not only defrauding


women but, what is more pathetic, defrauding men who are anxious to buy stockings for wives and sweethearts, does my right hon. Friend really think the number of prosecutions is satisfactory and, if not, what will he do to deal with this widespread evil?

Mr. Wilson: Some 77 of the 85 prosecutions were against street and market traders and I understand that a further 135 cases have been recommended by the Central Price Regulation Committee for prosecution, most of them against such traders.

Russian Timber

Mr. Fisher: asked the President of the Board of Trade how the price of timber recently purchased from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics compares with the price at which Swedish timber could have been bought last November.

Mr. H. Wilson: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 6th July to the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish).

Mr. Fisher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) on 6th July was quite evasive in that it is perfectly well known throughout the timber industry in this country and Scandinavia that more timber could have been obtained than that recently bought from Russia, and at a cheaper price, if negotiations last November had been carried on with reasonable vigour and despatch? Will he agree that there has been considerable detriment to the house-building programme by his policy?

Mr. Wilson: However widely known it may be, that does not make it true.

Newsprint Supplies

Mr. Hurd: asked the President of the Board of Trade what proportions of the total supply of newsprint and mechanical pulp are now used by the daily and weekly newspapers and by periodicals, respectively; and what were the proportions so used in 1948; and if he can give an estimate of the proportions so used in 1938.

Mr. H. Wilson: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon.

Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hurd: Will the Minister tell us whether the proportions have substantially changed?

Mr. Wilson: They have changed, but I should not have said substantially.

Following is the answer:

It is estimated that daily and weekly newspapers are now using about 88 per cent. of all the newsprint consumed in this country, and that periodicals are using about 11 per cent. The respective proportions were probably 90 per cent. and 8.5 per cent. in 1948, and 92 per cent. and 7 per cent. in 1938–39.

Mechanical pulp is used both in the manufacture of newsprint and for mechanical printing paper for periodicals and other uses. It is estimated that newspapers are now using a quantity of paper which represents about 46 per cent. of the total, supplies of mechanical pulp, as compared with 55 per cent. in 1948 and 63 per cent. in 1938–39.

In 1948, the total consumption of mechanical printing paper by periodicals represented about 16 per cent. of total mechanical pulp supplies and has probably since increased, but no accurate information is available for 1950 or for the pre-war period.

Mr. Hurd: asked the President of the Board of Trade what commitments he has entered into for the export of newsprint to Australia in the present year; and how this compares with the average quantity exported in the past three years.

Mr. H. Wilson: None, Sir, it is the paper mills who enter into such commitments in the light of commercial considerations, but we have informed them that export licences will be permitted for the export of about 75,000 tons of newsprint to Australia, as compared with an average of 11,955 tons in the three years 1947 to 1949.

Mr. Hurd: Will the Minister say to what extent this greatly increased export is due to pressure which the Government have applied to the British newsprint mills? Further, what steps is he taking to safeguard the interests of home consumers, that is to say, the newspaper industry and the readers of newspapers?

Mr. Wilson: If the Government had been prepared to issue export licences for all the newsprint which the mills have been asking for, and which they would like to supply abroad, a much greater tonnage would have been involved.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken advantage of the presence of Mr. Menzies in this country to discuss the matter with him?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir, and I might say that Mr. Menzies has taken advantage of his visit to this country to press for more.

Mr. Snow: Will my right hon. Friend resist the Conservative demand to restrict Commonwealth trade?

Mr. De la Bére: asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the failure of some Continental contractors to deliver a substantial tonnage of newsprint for the second half of this year, and the short supply from the home mills, to what extent he can make concessions to the weekly provincial periodicals to ensure them sufficient newsprint for the second half of this year.

Mr. H. Wilson: While I should be reluctant to interfere with the discretion of the Newsprint Rationing Committee, I would agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be desirable within the limits available that weekly provincial papers should have so far as possible special consideration. It may be of assistance if I now announce that dollars will be made available for the import of a further 37,500 tons of newsprint from Canada in the second half of 1951, provided that the Newsprint Supply Company can place the necessary contracts for delivery before the end of that year.

Mr. De la Bére: So far so good, but is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the British public are entitled to a free end fair sized Press so that the news can be fully maintained? Although I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman has said I want him to do far more. We must have an adequately sized Press in this country.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Member will be aware, if he studied the Debate we had in the small hours of yesterday morning, that the newspapers themselves only this year thought it would be possible to maintain the size of newspapers without requiring any dollar expenditure at all.

Mr. H. Hynd: In considering the allocation of newsprint between national and local newspapers will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that local newspapers generally do not publish comic strips or serial stories?

Mr. Wilson: I have never been concerned with what is contained in newspapers, national or local, from that point of view, but I have suggested to the interests concerned that if any further cut in tonnage becomes necessary, the weekly provincial papers should be exempted from that cut.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Arising from the right hon. Gentleman's statement about the allocation of dollars for the second half of 1951, is he aware that we regard that as a distinct advance? But can he make any further statement to us about the second half of this year and about the very serious position in which the newspapers are at present in regard to newsprint?

Mr. Wilson: No, I do not think that I have anything to add to what I said in the House recently in regard to the second half of this year, when I made a full statement of the reasons which led to the deterioration of the position.

Mr. Butler: Has the right hon. Gentleman anything to say about the export of newsprint and the extent of that export from this country?

Mr. Wilson: I should be surprised if the right hon. Gentleman, in view of what has so often been stressed on his side of the House about the sanctity of contracts, was asking me to interfere with and override contracts already entered into for the second half of this year.

Air Commodore Harvey: Does it mean that the present size of national and provincial papers will be maintained during the whole of next year?

Mr. Wilson: It means that depending on the amount that can be bought from soft currency sources, there is no reason why the present size should not be maintained throughout 1951. The Government will, naturally, do everything within their power to see that the size of newspapers does not fall below the present size next year.

Mr. Hurd: Will the right hon. Gentleman have a further talk with Mr. Menzies


to see if Australia will delay taking some newsprint during the latter half of this year so that we can maintain the present size of newspapers?

Mr. Wilson: I am seeing Mr. Menzies tomorrow morning, but as I have made clear to the House the discussions are on the footing that Mr. Menzies is pressing for larger supplies of newsprint for Australia for next year.

Mr. Deedes: Having reached these arrangements, will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that we will stand by this contract with Canada on this occasion, and not repeat what happened last year?

Mr. Wilson: The first thing is for a contract to be concluded. The Government have made dollars available for the acquisition of newsprint, but it has not so far proved possible to place a contract. The request was made to us only last week by the Newsprint Supply Company that these dollars should be allocated, and they have now been allocated.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said in reply to my right hon. Friend about the sanctity of contracts, does that mean that he regrets his own interference with that sanctity last year?

U.K. Delegations (Cost)

Mr. Russell: asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the total cost incurred by the United Kingdom delegation to the International Trade Conferences at Geneva in 1947, Havana in 1947–48 and Annecy in 1949; and what is the estimated cost per month of sending a delegation to the conference to be opened at Torquay in September.

Mr. H. Wilson: The costs (exclusive of salaries) incurred by the United Kingdom delegations to the Conferences at Geneva, Havana, and Annecy were approximately £83,700, £51,800 and £22,000 respectively. The cost of sending a delegation to the Conference at Torquay will depend mainly on the size of the delegation it is found necessary to maintain there, but at present it is estimated at £4,000 to £5,000 per month.

Rayon (Australian Import Duties)

Squadron Leader Kinghorn: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has now had the opportunity of discussing with the Australian Prime Minister the matter of the import duty on British rayon; and with what results.

Mr. H. Wilson: Yes, Sir, I have discussed this matter fully with Mr. Menzies, and he has undertaken that the views of the United Kingdom Government will be carefully considered and will be fully reported to the Australian Parliament when the resolution on the duties comes up for debate.

Squadron Leader Kinghorn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Members on all sides of the House are very grateful to him for seeing Mr. Menzies about this, and if he is to see him again will he ask him to tell the people of Australia that we regard this as a breach of our family contract and certainly as a breach of the Ottawa Agreement?

Mr. Wilson: I think the Prime Minister of Australia is fully aware of the views of His Majesty's Government and of hon. Members of this House who have expressed themselves on the matter.

Mr. Spence: Was the question of other textiles as well as rayon discussed on this occasion?

Mr. Wilson: No, Sir. We discussed only the position of the recent increase of the rayon duties in Australia.

Business Names (Registration)

Mr. G. P. Stevens: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will instruct the registrar of business names to alter the wording of Note 7 of the Section dealing with names in the registrar's leaflet, R.19, in order to remove its mandatory character.

Mr. H. Wilson: In my answer to the hon. Member's Question on 6th July, I explained that the leaflet to which he refers is not a statutory document, and does not purport to be one. It sets out, for the guidance of the public, what is in fact the practice of the Registrar in these matters. This practice is based on the proposition that in the absence of good reasons to the contrary, the use by an applicant of a name which is not his own, is undesirable. I see no reason why either the practice or the wording should be altered.

Mr. Stevens: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that Section 116 (1) of the Companies Act, 1947, places on the Registrar the onus of saying that the name is undesirable, whereas Note No. 7 places the obligation on the applicant to show that the name is desirable? Consequently, this is the converse of the rule that a person is innocent until proved guilty.

Mr. Wilson: I thought it was a good rule that people usually went under their own names and that they had to give a good reason before using other peoples names.

Mr. Stevens: Is it not true that a very large part of the good will of a business consists of the name, so that a purchaser ought to be able to use it?

Mr. Wilson: It is one of the conditions that unless valid reasons can be given no other name can be used.

Sir Herbert Williams: Does that apply to Ministers of the Crown?

New Factory, Caernarvonshire

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the present position in respect of the proposal to erect a new factory in the Nantlle Valley, Caernarvonshire; and if he will make a full statement.

Mr. H. Wilson: My hon. Friend will now have received the letter sent to him on 17th July by the Board of Trade Controller in Wales. I understand that the final formalities in respect of the proposed factory are on the point of completion and that the local authority will be able to proceed with the building almost at once.

Civil Defence (Key Industries)

Surgeon Lieut. - Commander Reginald Bennett: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to secure the dispersal of key industries as a measure of Civil Defence.

Mr. H. Wilson: Arrangements exist for planning the dispersal of existing key industries in the event of an emergency. The need for dispersal is also taken into account, among other factors, before approval is given to expansion schemes in these industries.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Would the right hon. Gentleman not

agree that it is of doubtful wisdom from the strategic point of view that a new very large oil refinery should be placed alongside an existing expanded one and a third establishment within easy radius of a carelessly dropped atom bomb?

Mr. Wilson: As the hon. and gallant Member has already been informed in relation to that refinery, all relevant considerations, including strategic considerations, were taken into account when that decision was made.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Are we to assume that the Government regard that refinery as being strategically well planned?

Mr. Wilson: The hon. and gallant Member can assume what he likes from the statement of the facts. Strategic considerations were certainly taken into account with the others.

Tariffs (Protocol)

Mr. Russell: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, when discussing the proposal at Torquay to extend the operative period of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade beyond 1950, the Government will press to retain the right at present existing under the Protocol to withdraw from the Agreement at 60 days' notice.

Mr. H. Wilson: The proposal to extend for three years from 1st January, 1951, the validity of the Tariff Schedules to the General Agreement does not involve ratifying the Agreement and therefore giving up the right under the Protocol of Provisional Application to withdraw from the Agreement as a whole at 60 days' notice.

Raw Cotton (Price)

Mr. Fort: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what is the price at which the Raw Cotton Commission buys Nigerian raw cotton, in view of the fact that it charges spinners 33·75d. a lb. for it;
(2) why the Raw Cotton Commission charges cotton spinners 40d. a lb. for Uganda BP52 raw cotton when it is buying it at a price equivalent to 32d. a lb. spot, Liverpool.

Mr. H. Wilson: The Cotton (Centralised Buying) Act, 1947, lays upon


the Raw Cotton Commission the responsibility of determining the prices at which they sell raw cotton. I understand that the present selling-price policy of the Commission is based generally on current world replacement prices, taking account also of the relative spinning values of different growths of cotton. Since buying prices for both the Uganda and the Nigeria crops last season were negotiated some time ago, it stands to reason that current selling prices may well differ from the purchase prices. In fact, since these prices were negotiated last autumn there has been a steady rise in world replacement prices (although in subsequent years the reverse may be the case). The Raw Cotton Commission have a long term agreement with the Nigerian Produce Marketing Company Limited, and the price agreed annually between these two bodies is a matter for settlement between them.

Mr. Fort: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the prices being paid to the growers both in Nigeria and Uganda, are very much lower than the prices at which the Commission is selling to spinners in Lancashire? Is he not further aware that he is in this way making it difficult for the Lancashire textile industry to compete with Japanese and other overseas competitors, who will be able to buy raw cotton cheaper than it is being supplied in Lancashire?

Mr. Wilson: No, Sir. The prices being charged are world replacement values. If I may say so, hon. Gentlemen who complain when the policy of selling at replacement prices lead to bookkeeping losses under falling market conditions, can hardly complain when the same practice leads to profits on a rising market. They cannot expect to have it both ways.

Mr. Fort: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that by the methods which are now being followed, the Lancashire cotton industry is in a very bad competitive position in selling in these African markets?

Mr. Wilson: No. I have made it clear that sales are at replacement cost. The hon. Member would, I hope, be the last to complain at the introduction of long-term contracts with Commonwealth countries for the supply of cotton.

Mr. Drayson: Why not re-open the Liverpool Cotton Exchange?

Mr. Wilson: If we did, the price to Lancashire would be a good deal higher than is the case now.

Sir H. Williams: Does the doctrine of replacement prices apply also to the regulations under the Prices of Goods Act, which denies that doctrine?

Mr. Wilson: This Question relates to the activities of the Raw Cotton Commission.

Oral Answers to Questions — COPYRIGHT LAWS (OPERAS)

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider amending the copyright laws so that operas, which represent some of the finest examples of British light music, will be protected from arrangers.

Mr. H. Wilson: The question of a general review of the law of copyright, which will include the Question raised by the hon. Member, is now under consideration.

Mr. Nicholls: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the special difficulties in the case of the Gilbert and Sullivan operas, where Sir Arthur Sullivan's music loses protection in November of this year whereas in the case of W. S. Gilbert's libretti protection goes on until 1961, and please avoid it coming under the process of the "shreds and patches" of Tin Pan Alley?

Mr. Wilson: I would join with the hon. Member in deploring the performance of Sullivan's music in what I understand is technically called "jive," "bebop" and such terms.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE DUTIES, LONDON (SPORTS EVENTS)

Earl Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will increase the number of police officers on patrol duty in London by informing the organisers of sports events in London that they must be responsible for maintaining order in their premises and that officers of the Metropolitan Police will not be available for that purpose except in emergencies.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): This would not be practicable. Metropolitan police are only employed in this way at the principal sports grounds where the presence of police is highly desirable and necessary in view of the large crowds which assemble.

Earl Winterton: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what possible justification there can be, at a time when there is such a desperate lack of police for street duties, for having a solid line of police to guard us old gentlemen in the Pavilion at Lords after a Test Match? Is he aware that the risk of anyone being lynched at Lords is very small and that in any case it would not be playing the game?

Mr. Ede: Remarks I have heard today about West Indian bowlers make me think that there might be serious trouble for some of them. I am quite sure that the House would desire that the noble Lord should be protected at Lords, but I will inquire as to whether there was an excessive number of police there.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISTRESSED PERSONS, EUROPE (ADMISSION TO U.K.)

Mr. McAdden: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he proposes to issue revised instructions to the passport control officers in supplementation of his official pronouncement on the admission of distressed persons to the United Kingdom of 13th November, 1945.

Mr. Ede: The main features of the scheme for the admission of distressed relatives announced on 13th November, 1945, remain unchanged, but the scheme is kept under review and it is the policy to grant applications in respect of relatives outside the existing classes where there are special circumstances which justify exceptional treatment. Passport control officers are kept fully informed.

Mr. Kenneth Thompson: In view of the fact that it is possible for distressed relatives to be admitted into this country under the present Regulations, would it also be possible to admit into this country the non-distressed relatives of a distressed person in this country? Is that clear?

Mr. Ede: It is quite clear, but I would like to give it mature consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — JUVENILE OFFENDERS

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the issue of a circular to magistrates giving guidance as to their attitude towards juvenile offenders charged with gross cruelty to animals and birds.

Mr. Ede: It is for magistrates to exercise their powers in the light of the particular circumstances of each case, and it would not be right for me to issue any guidance on the lines suggested.

Sir T. Moore: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when some unspeakable little hooligans were charged recently with stoning some ducks to death, all the magistrates could find to say in condemnation was, "You naughty little boys"? How can that phraseology bring home to them the wickedness of their offence? Is not it within the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to advise the magistrates as to their duty?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I think we must assume that magistrates will bear in mind the particular circumstances of each case.

Oral Answers to Questions — CRUELTY TO CHILDREN (REPORT)

Mr. Somerville Hastings: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take upon the report of the Department Working Party which he appointed to inquire into cruelty and neglect of children in their homes.

Mr. Ede: I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement of the conclusions my colleagues and I have reached and the action we propose to take.

Mr. Hastings: Does my right hon. Friend realise that there is still a great deal of cruelty to children which the present machinery, at any rate, has entirely failed to prevent?

Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir. I think that when my hon. Friend has the opportunity of reading my statement, which is fairly long, he will find that we have been advising local authorities on practical steps to reduce the amount of cruelty.

Earl Winterton: Has the right hon. Gentleman called the attention of those authorities to the action taken by the hon. Gentleman opposite, myself and Members of all parties in the last Parliament in connection with this matter, and the instances we brought forward of the grave injustices being done to children under the present law?

Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir. I have had conferences with the representatives of the local authority associations and they are exceedingly anxious that all practical steps should be taken to reduce this evil.

Following is the statement:

The Government have, as promised, considered the issues which were raised in the Debates in Parliament in July and December of last year on the subject of children neglected or ill-treated in their own homes. They have been assisted by a report furnished to their Ministers by a Working Party of officials of the Home Office, Ministry of Health, and Ministry of Education, and the corresponding Scottish Departments, which examined the various aspects of the matter.

The Government have reached the conclusion that the present need is not for an extension of statutory powers, or for inquiry by a Departmental committee, but for the fully co-ordinated use of the local authority and other statutory and voluntary services available. Local authorities already have wide powers to assist families, and health visitors, teachers, school attendance officers and others in regular contact with children are in a position to assist in bringing cases of neglect or ill-treatment to light. In addition, voluntary organisations, in particular the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Royal Scottish Society are engaged in work in this field.

The resources of local statutory and voluntary effort cannot however be used to the best advantage unless there is effective co-ordination. It is of the first importance that help where needed should be given at an early stage, and that information should reach the service which could be of most assistance before valuable time has been lost and harm has been done. If the right help is not given in time, children who might otherwise have remained with their

parents may have to be removed from home because deterioration has gone too far.

The Government have accordingly decided that the right course is to ask local authorities to introduce arrangements designed to ensure that action is coordinated to make the most effective use of the available resources, statutory and voluntary alike. The councils of counties and county boroughs (in Scotland, the councils of counties and large burghs) are being asked to make suitable arrangements to secure co-ordination among all the local services, statutory and voluntary, which are concerned with the welfare of children in their own homes. This might well be achieved by designating an officer of the local authority whose task would be to ensure such co-ordination. By this means, significant cases of child neglect and all cases of ill-treatment coming to the notice of any statutory or voluntary service in the area could be considered, and agreement reached as to how the local services could best be applied to meet the need.

The Government are convinced that it is on these lines that the problem can best be tackled, and are confident that local authorities and voluntary organisations concerned can be relied upon to co-operate freely in putting the arrangements into effect.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOMBED PROPERTY (STORAGE)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what it now costs to reimburse local authorities for the storage of property belonging to bombed out persons.

Mr. Ede: The estimated cost of this service during the current financial year is of the order of £80,000.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Has my right hon. Friend taken any steps to encourage local authorities to terminate this liability on the taxpayer, especially as in a number of cases the owners of this property have either died or long since disappeared?

Mr. Ede: I am giving this matter earnest consideration, and I hope shortly to bring before the House some proposals for dealing with the kind of situation to which my hon. and gallant Friend has alluded.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISON OFFICERS (ACCOMMODATION)

Earl Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the aggregate amount of new accommodation provided in the various penal establishments of Great Britain for married and single officers of the prison service since 1st January, 1949.

Mr. Ede: During the period 1st January, 1949, to 1st July, 1950, 249 additional married officers' quarters were provided. Bachelor accommodation either by new building or the conversion of existing buildings was completed for 367 officers.

Earl Winterton: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that the state of affairs—which can only be described as scandalous—in the not very remote past, where warders had actually to sleep in prison cells, has now been remedied, and that there is sufficient accommodation for both married and single warders?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. Accommodation is not yet sufficient, but I am doing all that is possible, within the allocation of materials and labour, to remedy the situation.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Can the right hon. Gentleman clarify the point and say whether the figures he has given refer to Great Britain or to England and Wales?

Mr. Ede: I think they refer to England and Wales, but I will let the hon. and gallant Member know.

Oral Answers to Questions — HIGHWAY OBSTRUCTION (PROSECUTIONS)

Sir H. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the fact that more than half of the prosecutions for obstruction of the highway by motor vehicles took place in the Metropolitan Police district; and if he will examine the reasons for this disproportion.

Mr. Ede: The high number of prosecutions in the Metropolitan Police district for obstruction of the highway by motor vehicles reflects the fact that this kind of obstruction is the most potent cause of traffic congestion in the district, and does

not call for any further examination on my part, since London conditions are clearly not strictly comparable with those of other areas.

Sir H. Williams: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken the trouble to look at the conditions in places like Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester, where there is just the same degree of obstruction but not so much fussiness on the part of the police?

Mr. Ede: When I get to Birmingham my anxiety is to find my way about at all. I find it far easier to get in than to get out of that city. But I think that in some of the smaller towns through which I go there is evidence of a need on the part of the authorities to see that less obstruction is caused than is at present allowed.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME OFFICE (CHILDREN'S OFFICERS)

Mr. Bishop: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the qualifications required of candidates for training and for appointment to senior and supervisory posts in the children's departments of the Home Office respectively.

Mr. Ede: I understand that the hon. Member has in mind the appointment by local authorities of children's officers. The qualifications required of these officers are a matter primarily for the local authority concerned, but I have advised local authorities to have regard to the views expressed by the Curtis Committee and to aim at selecting candidates who, in addition to training and experience in general social work, possess such qualities of mind and personality as will suggest that they would be likely to undertake successfully the administrative and personal work required.

Mr. Bishop: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is necessary for people who wish to undertake this work of looking after children deprived of normal home life to have a university degree or a similar qualification? Is he aware that many people with great experience of this work are being crowded out of this important service by this requirement?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I do not think that they are crowded out, but I think that


some evidence of the study of social conditions and social science is an additional recommendation.

Mr. Hastings: Does my right hon. Friend realise how successful local authorities have been in selecting their children's officers so far?

Mr. Ede: I think that, on the whole, having regard to the fact that this was a new service, local authorities are to be congratulated on the selections they have made.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUBVERSIVE POSTERS

Mr. H. A. Price: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied that the instructions which, in reply to Questions in the House in June, 1947, he promised to give, in connection with the approval and display of subversive posters, have been strictly adhered to.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I presume that the hon. Member is referring to an answer which I gave on 25th June, 1947. regarding complaints which were made about a poster issued in April of that year by the Bureau of Current Affairs. No complaints of the display of subversive posters have recently come to my notice, but if the hon. Member has any particular case in mind perhaps he will communicate with me.

Mr. Price: Is the Prime Minister aware that in April of this year the Secretary of State for War refused to accept from me a criticism of these posters? In view of that will he ensure that his instructions are carried out in accordance with his view, and not in accordance with the view of the Secretary of State for War?

The Prime Minister: There is only one view on this matter and that is the view of the Government. If the hon. Member has any case perhaps he will bring it to my notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Glasshouses (Fuel)

Mr. Tom Brown: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to make an announcement about arrangements for allocation of fuel for glasshouses in the coming season.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): After consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have decided to remove all restrictions on the cropping of glasshouses. Growers will therefore, no longer be required to sign an undertaking that they will devote a prescribed portion of their heated glasshouse space to food crops in order to obtain large coal.

Mr. Brown: May I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, and say that it will give intense satisfaction to those interested in growing food, etc., under glass?

Strawberries, Lincolnshire

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware of the glut of strawberries in North Lincolnshire owing to the shortage of tinplate and the scarcity of baskets; and what action he proposes to take to help the fruit farmers.

Mr. T. Williams: My information is that the Lincolnshire strawberry crop, now finished, was a good one but that there has been no glut. I have had no complaints of tinplate shortage for strawberry canning. The supply of baskets for strawberries has also met requirements.

Mr. Osborne: If I send the Minister evidence of the shortage and the difficulties which growers have been in as a result of it, will he look into the matter, assuming that he is in the same job next year, will he take steps next year to put it right?

Mr. Williams: I would prefer it if the hon. Member sent me some strawberries.

Mr. Gerald Williams: Will the Minister say why it is the policy of the Government to export tinplate to other countries and thus enable them to compete with ourselves, when they do not have to comply with the same standards as our own fruit growers?

Mr. Williams: I told the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) that there was no shortage of tinplate for strawberry canning.

Mr. De la Bère: There is an acute shortage of tinplate.

Mr. Deedes: How closely does the right hon. Gentleman work on this question with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Food?

Mr. Williams: Very closely indeed

Farmers (Petrol Grant)

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Agriculture how farmers are to collect the grant promised them by the Chancellor of the Exchequer against the increased price of petrol.

Mr. T. Williams: As I informed the House in the statement I made during the Committee stage of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, on 13th July, the opening date for the receipt of claims is not likely to be earlier than 1st January, 1951, though the period to be covered by the claims will go back to the date of the Chancellor's Budget Statement. Matters of this sort will be dealt with in the scheme to be made under the Bill and in the publicity which will be associated with it.

Mr. Bossom: Will the Minister kindly answer my Question, and say how they will collect the money?

Mr. Williams: They will most certainly collect the money after they have made a claim and justified it.

Mr. Bossom: What is the machinery or the procedure they have to follow to get the money?

Mr. Williams: I have already explained that the machinery will be dealt with in the scheme when it is produced.

Experimental Farm Martyr Worthy

Mr. Peter Smithers: asked the Minister of Agriculture how much land has been brought under cultivation as a result of the grubbing of hedges, windbreaks and copses and the filling in of chalk pits on the Ministry of Agriculture Experimental Farm at Martyr Worthy; and what has been the cost of these operations.

Mr. T. Williams: Sixteen acres have been cleared for cultivation at a net cost of approximately £50 per acre. Apart from providing more land for the work of the Centre a new and more scientific layout of fields has been made possible, and vermin, being denied cover, are easier

to control. Both these points are of special importance to the experimental work which is to be undertaken.

Mr. Smithers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that vermin do not need any cover in my division?

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Presumably this experimental farm is meant to be an example, but can the right hon. Gentleman say where, when they take away the hedges, copses and windbreaks, the birds which eat the vermin will go to lay their eggs?

General Sir George Jeffreys: Is the Minister aware that the filling in of chalk pits is an extremely uneconomical proceeding, and that an enormous amount of material and labour is necessary for a very small return in the way of cultivated land?

Mr. Williams: We are satisfied that, for experimental purposes, this scheme has been well worth while.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHING INDUSTRY (FOREIGN LANDINGS)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Agriculture if, as the landing capacity of the large deep-sea trawlers is greatly in excess of market requirements, he will introduce the pre-war quota system on the landings of foreign caught fish.

Mr. T. Williams: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by the Prime Minister in the House on 4th July, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Osborne: Since the Minister himself has admitted that deep-sea trawlers are producing more fish than the market can absorb, and since 70 per cent. of the total amount of fish landed in this country comes from Hull and Grimsby, from where these trawlers operate, will he do something at once to prohibit the importation of foreign caught fish?

Mr. Williams: If the hon. Member will read the statement made by the Prime Minister, he will find that the Prime Minister said that steps were to be taken in that direction.

Mr. Osborne: But in the meantime the men who are working in these trawlers are having a very difficult time, and something should be done at once.

Mr. Mikardo: Set the people free!

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Timber Imports

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the improved financial position of this country and the increase in the gold reserves, he will confer with the Ministers of Health and Supply and the President of the Board of Trade, with a view to sanctioning the increase in the imports of timber to this country for the purpose of expediting the Government's building programme.

The Minister of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Gaitskell): While, as my right hon. and learned Friend has emphasised, our gold reserves are still far from adequate and we must continue to control dollar expenditure strictly, we hope to be able to allot sufficient dollars to purchase the timber needed for the housing programme.

Mr. De la Bère: Are we to understand that, if there is any doubt at all, the housing programme will have to suffer? Is not the Minister aware that the supply of timber is still inadequate, and that many of the forms of timber are not suitable for the purpose for which they are offered? This is a grave scandal.

Mr. Gaitskell: There is no reason to suppose that we shall not be able to buy the timber we need, and to spend the dollars we need, for this purpose. I am not prepared to agree that there is a shortage of timber which has affected the housing programme.

Mr. De la Bère: I do not mind. The fact remains that it is so.

Canada (Trade Discussions)

Mr. Russell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the recent trade discussions in London with representatives of the Canadian Government.

Mr. Gaitskell: A meeting of the United Kingdom-Canada Continuing Committee on Trade and Economic Affairs was held in London from 19th-23rd June, under the chairmanship of the Canadian High Commissioner. Commercial and economic current developments of mutual concern were reviewed, and a useful ex-

change of views took place. The members of the Committee are reporting on their discussions to their respective Governments.

Mr. Russell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any progress was made towards increasing our purchases from Canada?

Mr. Gaitskell: It would be inappropriate for any announcement to be made until the Government have considered the recommendations and suggestions of the Committee.

Colonies (Dollar Balances)

Sir Richard Acland: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now make a statement showing what contribution each of our Colonies makes to the gold and dollar reserves of the sterling area.

Mr. Gaitskell: I would refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. and learned Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) on 18th July.

Sir R. Acland: Did he, in that reply, give the dollar balances earned or lost by the different Colonies?

Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir. He indicated that, in the next Balance of Payments White Paper, he would give the figures of the net gold and dollar balances of the Colonies as a whole, but that there were technical difficulties about giving them for separate Colonies.

Mr. Keeling: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how the Chancellor could give the total figures for the Colonies' contributions to the dollar reserve, as he did on Wednesday week, unless he knew the figures for each Colony?

Mr. Gaitskell: Some of the figures available were for groups of Colonies taken together.

Post-War Credits

Brigadier Terence Clarke: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now take the necessary steps to enable post-war credits to be repaid to disabled people who are unfit for work.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): No, Sir.

Brigadier Clarke: Does the Minister realise that disabled people have great difficulty in paying their way in these days, and that this repayment of postwar credits would be of great benefit to them?

Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir. The difficulty is that this is one among various groups with special claims, and I am not convinced that we should be justified in selecting this one and leaving out the rest.

Mr. Profumo: Does not the hon. Gentleman's answer indicate that the whole question of post-war credits is most unsatisfactory, and that it ought to be reviewed in the light of the failure of, the Government to meet their commitments?

Mr. Jay: It would require legislation to make any alteration.

Mr. Profumo: Let us have it.

Mr. Jay: The whole matter will be reviewed again, in the normal way, before another Finance Bill is introduced.

Mr. De la Bère: The position is thoroughly unsatisfactory.

Purchase Tax (Coupons)

Mr. G. P. Stevens: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the issue of Purchase Tax coupons can be extended to cover holders of Central and South American passports, in addition to holders of United States of America passports.

Mr. Jay: My right hon. and learned Friend will consider this.

Mr. Stevens: Is the Minister aware that this matter has been under consideration for some months? Can he hasten the decision?

Mr. Jay: It is best to think first and act afterwards.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED AID TO CHINA FUND

Sir H. Williams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the United Aid to China Fund is still sending money and goods to China.

Mr. Gaitskell: There have been no exports of goods this year, and only one

remittance of less than £500. I understand that one more consignment of clothing and medical supplies—received as a result of the Lord Mayor's appeal—is likely to be sent in the near future.

Sir H. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman say to whom the remittance was sent?

Mr. Gaitskell: I presume that it was sent to the International Relief Committee which, I understand, distributes the amount.

Sir H. Williams: Yes, but could the right hon. Gentleman say whether the International Relief Committee is in Formosa or Pekin?

Mr. Gaitskell: As far as I am aware, it is in Shanghai.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL CIVIL SERVANTS (LEAVE)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding the claim for 12 days annual leave for industrial civil servants employed by the Ministry of Works; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Jay: I have been receiving a number of letters from hon. Members containing representations sent to them by industrial employees in the Ministry of Works about the claim for increased leave. As my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out in his reply on 18th July to the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) the trade union side of the Joint Co-ordinating Committee for Government Industrial Establishments has tabled this claim for discussion at the next meeting on 27th July. My right hon. and learned Friend will consider the claim in the light of the arguments which are then put forward.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS (PRINTING)

Sir H. Williams: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why it takes His Majesty's Stationery Office 75 per cent. longer to print Parliamentary Questions than it did in 1939.

Mr. Jay: I am not aware that the printing takes longer than it did in 1939. Questions received by the printer during one Sitting appear in the Votes for the next Sitting.

Sir H. Williams: Can the Minister say why it was that in pre-war days we could hand in a Question on a Monday, for example, up to the time when the House adjourned, and it would be answered on the Wednesday, but now we have to hand in Questions before 2.30 p.m.? Why does it take so much longer now than it did in those days?

Mr. Jay: I do not think that that is a question of printing for which the Stationery Office is responsible. I think it is a question of procedure.

Sir H. Williams: Can the hon. Gentleman say what procedure makes it so much longer?

Oral Answers to Questions — KOREA (U.K.-SOVIET EXCHANGES)

Mr. Eden: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he can now make a statement with regard to the recent conversations between the Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister and His Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
In view of the publication this morning in Moscow of a version of the exchanges which have taken place between His Majesty's Government and the Soviet Government on the Korean issue, I think it desirable to bring the facts to the notice of the House.
The Soviet Government were not represented at the meetings of the Security Council which discussed the Korean issue, and His Majesty's Government accordingly decided to establish direct contact with the Soviet Government in an effort to secure their co-operation in effecting a peaceful settlement of the Korean conflict.
Accordingly, on 29th June His Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow expressed to the Soviet authorities the urgent hope of His Majesty's Government that the Soviet Government would cooperate to this end.
Mr. Pavlov, whom His Majesty's Ambassado saw in the absence of Mr. Gromyko, promised to refer the request to Mr. Gromyko.
On 6th July, Sir David Kelly was asked to call on Mr. Gromyko, who asked him if His Majesty's Government adhered to the statement made to Mr. Pavlov. Sir David Kelly confirmed that this was indeed the attitude of His Majesty's Government. Mr. Gromyko then said that the Soviet Government also wished for a peaceful settlement, and inquired whether Sir David Kelly had any propositions to make. Sir David Kelly said that it was the hope of His Majesty's Government that the Soviet Government would use their influence with the North Koreans to stop bloodshed.
The United Nations Commission had been working in Korea to promote the peaceful union of the two halves, and we wished to return to the status quo and to stop the war. Mr. Gromyko said that the position of the Soviet Government was already known from published documents. The Soviet Government wished for a peaceful settlement, and he asked Sir David Kelly whether he had any specific proposals to make. Sir David Kelly replied that what he was asking was that the Soviet Government would use their influence with the North Koreans. He added that he would report at once what Mr. Gromyko had said and would ask to see him again if he received a further communication for him.
At a further meeting with Mr. Gromyko on 11th July, Sir David Kelly said that His Majesty's Government noted the wish of the Soviet Government for a peaceful settlement, which was also the earnest wish of His Majesty's Government. Sir David Kelly said that by specific proposals Mr. Gromyko no doubt meant offers to be binding if accepted. He explained the Security Council had made recommendations which had received the overwhelming support of the United Nations, and proposals in this sense could only be made by His Majesty's Government if they carried the assent of other United Nations chiefly concerned. In view of their collective responsibility, His Majesty's Government could not run so far ahead as this. Their preliminary suggestion was that the forces making for peace should join together to bring about the cessation of hostilities and the withdrawal of the


North Korean forces beyond the 38th Parallel, without concerning themselves for the moment with other causes of difference which had arisen in the past in connection with the Korean question.
Sir David Kelly went on to say that, irrespective of other considerations, the plain fact was that the hostilities were due to the North Koreans having crossed the 38th Parallel, and the best suggestion which His Majesty's Government, as a member of the United Nations, could make was to urge the Soviet Government, likewise a member of the United Nations, to add their efforts to those of other members by using their influence with the North Koreans.
Sir David Kelly made it clear that he was not speaking for any other Government or organisation but only for His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, who felt deeply the dangers of the present situation and who earnestly appealed to the Soviet Government to add their efforts to those of other members of the United Nations and to use their influence to secure a return to the methods of peaceful negotiation. Sir David Kelly said that he would be glad to pass on any suggestions which Mr. Gromyko had to make. Mr. Gromyko said that the Soviet Government would be informed.
Sir David Kelly was again requested to call on Mr. Gromyko on 17th July. Mr. Gromyko briefly summarised Sir David Kelly's communication of 11th July, and stated that, in the opinion of the Soviet Government, the best means for a peaceful settlement of the Korean question was the convening of the Security Council with the indispensable participation of the Chinese People's Government. He added that representatives of the Korean people should be heard and that the Security Council should then solve the Korean question.
Sir David Kelly stated that the general attitude of His Majesty's Government to the representation of the Chinese People's Government was known; but that this question was separate from that of the actual situation, which was that forces representing 53 United Nations were being attacked in South Korea.
He inquired whether it was the view of the Soviet Government that this situation should be referred to the Security Council with the Chinese People's

Government participating, and that meanwhile hostilities should continue. Mr. Gromyko merely replied that it was for the Security Council to solve the broad Korean question. At their previous meetings, the exchanges between Sir David Kelly and Mr. Gromyko had been oral. On this occasion, however, Mr. Gromyko, in addition to outlining his views orally, handed to Sir David Kelly a text containing the views of the Soviet Government.
In view of the publication today of the Soviet version of these conversations, His Majesty's Government have decided that, to avoid misunderstanding, their views will be made known to the Soviet Government in writing.
Sir David Kelly has therefore been instructed to deliver an Aide Memoire to the Soviet Government confirming and summarising the views of His Majesty's Government. These, in short, are that the immediate issue is to stop hostilities in Korea, in regard to which His Majesty's Government reaffirm their support for the resolutions of the Security Council; and that the restoration of peace in Korea cannot be made conditional on the settlement of other issues. Noting the expressed desire of the Soviet Government for a peaceful settlement, His Majesty's Government reiterate the hope that the Soviet Government will use their influence with the North Koreans to bring about an immediate end of hostilities and the withdrawal of the North Korean forces to the northward of the 38th Parallel.

Mr. Eden: May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in fact, the Security Council itself, in view of the absence of the Soviet Government from the discussion, did not send a message to the Soviet Government asking them to use their good offices to secure the withdrawal of the North Korean troops to the 38th Parallel; and whether these other discussions which we have had with the Soviet Government have been with the full knowledge, at every stage, of our colleagues on the Security Council?

The Prime Minister: I think the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that that request was made to the Soviet Government, and our approach was merely to see whether, acting strictly within the Resolution of the Security Council, we could ourselves ask the


Soviet Government to assist in bringing about a cessation of hostilities on the terms of the Declaration.

Mr. Eden: Would the Prime Minister mind answering the last part of my question, which was whether other Governments, our colleagues on the Security Council, have been fully informed of this, and whether he is able to tell us whether any reply was sent by the Soviet Government to the Security Council?

The Prime Minister: Our colleagues were fully informed.

Mr. Paton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this diplomatic initiative by His Majesty's Government, expressing as it does the will of the United Nations, will be heartily welcomed by most of the people throughout the world?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that most of the people throughout the world are very anxious to have peace; and will he consider the question of urging the Security Council to accept on the Security Council a representative of the Government of China, which His Majesty's Government have already recognised?

The Prime Minister: That is entirely a separate question. As I have stated, His Majesty's Government are not prepared to try to make a bargain on this point.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED STATES CONGRESS (PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE)

Mr. Eden: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he could make a statement about the Message of the President to the Congress of the United States.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government warmly welcome the message sent by President Truman to the United States Congress yesterday.
These decisions demonstrate the determination of the United States Government to discharge their obligations under the United Nations Charter in the cause of peace, with particular reference to the obligations which they, in common with other members of the United Nations, have assumed under the Security Council resolutions on Korea.
The knowledge that the immense resources of the United States are now being geared to these tasks will give heart and encouragement to free peoples throughout the world, and in particular to the sorely pressed people of South Korea and to others who may be menaced by aggression.
The British people are engaged in a hard struggle for economic recovery from the consequences of the war and British resources are still strained. Nevertheless, His Majesty's Government will consider what can be done to match the high purpose and resolve to which Mr. Truman has given expression on behalf of the American people.

Mr. Eden: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that on this side of the House we regard the President's statement as one of encouragement and hope to the world?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the Prime Minister say whether there will be an opportunity of debating the whole question of these exchanges of notes before the House rises?

The Prime Minister: That question can be put to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Mr. Snow: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of informing some Republican Congressmen that this country has been maintaining between 40,000 and 50,000 troops in Malaya fighting Communist aggression for a very long time, with not unimportant casualties?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House to tell us the Business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Sir, the Business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 24TH JULY—Supply (26th allotted Day), Report.

Debate on Civil Defence.

At 9.30 p.m. the Report stage of all outstanding Votes will be put from the Chair.

Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Coal Mining (Subsidence) Bill and


to the Highways (Provision of Cattle-Grids) Bill. Consideration of Motions to approve the Town and Country Planning (Development Charge) Exemptions Regulations and similar Regulations for Scotland.

TUESDAY, 25TH JULY—Debate on the Reports of the British Electricity Authority and Area Boards.

Consideration of Motions to approve the Representation of the People Regulations and similar Regulations for Scotland and for Northern Ireland; the Draft Civil Defence (Demolition and Repair Services) Regulations and similar Regulations for Scotland; and the Draft Wool Textile Industry Order.

WEDNESDAY, 26TH JULY—Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill. Debate on Defence.

THURSDAY, 27TH JULY—Committee and remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.

Debate on the Annual Report of the Colonial Development Corporation, 1949, until 7.30 p.m. [Copies of the Report will be available in the Vote Office tomorrow (Friday).]

Afterwards, a debate on Newsprint Supplies.

During the week it is hoped to pass the following Consolidation Measures which have been received from another

place: the Matrimonial Causes Bill; the Arbitration Bill; the Adoption Bill; and the Shops Bill.

We propose to take Second Readings at the end of Business on Tuesday, and the Committee and remaining stages either on Wednesday or Thursday.

If all the necessary Business has been disposed of, including any further Amendments to Bills which may be received from another place, it is hoped to take the Motion for the Summer Recess on Friday, 28th July, and meet again on 17th October, it being understood, of course, that if it were necessary for the House to meet specially or earlier, then the Government would make representations to the Speaker under the Standing Orders.

Ordered:
That this day, Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock; and that if the first Two Resolutions proposed shall have been agreed to by the Committee of Supply before half-past Nine o'clock, the Chairman shall proceed to put forthwith the Questions which he is directed to put at half-past Nine o'clock by paragraph (6) of Standing Order No. 16 (Business of Supply)."—[The Prime Minister.]

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[25TH ALLOTTED DAY]

CIVIL ESTIMATES 1950–51

Considered in Committee.

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved:
That a sum, not exceeding £13,863,986, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sums necessary to defray the charges for the following services connected with Civil Defence for the year ending on the 31st March, 1951, namely:


CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1950–51



£


 Class III, Vote 1, Home Office
1,943,295


Class III, Vote 2, Home Office (Civil Defence Services
4,024,270


Class V, Vote 1, Ministry of Health
5,605,000


Class I, Vote 26, Scottish Home Department
849,160


Class III, Vote 13, Scottish Home Department (Civil Defence Services)
467,261


Class V, Vote 14, Department of Health for Scotland
975,000


Total
£13,863,986

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £56,431,894, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sums necessary to defray the charges for the following services connected with Education in Scotland for the year ending on the 31st March, 1951, namely:


CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1950–51



£


 Class IV, Vote 14, Public Education, Scotland
17,788,303


Class III, Vote 16, Approved Schools, Scotland
125,000


Class IV, Vote 11, Universities and Colleges &amp;c. Great Britain
13,419,060


Class I, Vote 4, Treasury and Subordinate Departments
2,193,181


Class VII, Vote 3, Public Buildings, Great Britain
22,906,350


Total
£56,431,894

EDUCATION, SCOTLAND

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: We are engaged today upon the examination of one of Scotland's greatest enterprises—some may even choose to describe it as the greatest. Certainly, in the long swing of the nation's stride to social and economic wellbeing, it is the most important of those enterprises; for, as we fight our way through the disturbing and ever more scientific conditions of this somewhat tortuous century, the need for high education—of the mind, the heart and the hand—becomes more urgent.
Fortunately for Scotland, that need is universally admitted, thanks to our enlightened forebears, for whom none of us can ever have enough admiration in this matter, the search for education has become almost a prime national instinct, unaffected by religion, or even by political party controversy. We have each, no doubt, our own particular emphasis, degree and object of enthusiasm. Some of us are more ardent about education than others; some more hesitant about change and experiment; for some, finance looms more largely than for others. That is, of course, as it should be in a country where men are free to form and express their opinions; for it is by the clash of these opinions that we arrive at what is possibly the best policy and the best progress.
But, by and large, I think I can claim that education commands the loyalty of us all. I think that is clear. By its culture and broadening of the mind, by its equalising of opportunity. it reflects the deep liberalism—I am not talking in the political sense—which underlies the Scottish character in all areas and in all sections of the people; and I have little doubt that it is in that spirit that most of us will approach the Debate today. It is, I am sure, the desire of us all, and particularly of my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee, to improve continually the educational facilities offered to our young people. That is our desire. What criticism there is will be criticism not of the object, but of the ways and means adopted to achieve that object.
I must confess—and I begin by being polite to the Secretary of State for Scotland and the hon. Lady—that I find the report for 1949 a remarkably refreshing and heartening document, and one in which we can all take our share of


modest pride. It is good to read of the efforts made on behalf of our handicapped children; of the camp schools, and of the first efforts to develop leadership in schools, a matter in which my noble Friend the Member for Inverness (Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton) is particularly interested, and about which I hope he will speak. It is good, also, to read of the steady advance of community centres and village halls, and of the community associations that follow from them and do such an immense amount of good for country people.
It is a fine thing and a tribute to the resilience and determination of the present generation of Scots men and women that our teachers, particularly our headmasters and headmistresses, have done so good a job in the last year, despite the almost overwhelming difficulties that have surrounded them. It is a fine thing that so many capable Scots boys and girls have passed from the hands of the teachers to the universities, to trade, commerce and industry throughout the land.
When I think of the difficulties that surround the teachers now—the shortage of staff, of accommodation, of equipment, the shortage, indeed, of almost everything except the pupils who crowd the classrooms as never before—I feel it is the duty of the House, and I hope the Committee will agree, to express its thanks to all those concerned. We should thank the local authorities, the administrators, the teachers and the pupils for what they have been able to achieve in these last very difficult 12 months.
I hope, however, that none of us is going to under-estimate or underrate the strain under which these fine people now operate. It is the kind of strain that can be borne for a time, and cheerfully—as I know it is—but which, if it is allowed to continue indefinitely or for too long, may bring down the whole edifice of education in Scotland. It is a very serious strain, and it is here that one experiences the first strong pang of dissatisfaction with the actions of His Majesty's Government at the present time.
Let us take, first, the problem of staffing. The Report on Education in Scotland in 1949 makes no attempt to conceal either the extent or the seriousness of this problem. I should like hon. Members to look at passages in the Report to

confirm what I have just said. On page 16 it says:
The difficulty of staffing new as well as existing schools has persisted, and in the more populous parts of the country the position has tended to deteriorate.
A little further on one reads:
The staffing of primary schools and departments showed some improvement, but remained difficult in Glasgow and in some of the urban areas, particularly in Lanarkshire and Renfewshire.
The Report adds that "in the remoter rural districts," with which so many of us here are concerned:
… the recruitment of qualified teachers in adequate numbers proved impossible. In the secondary schools little definite improvement in the staffing position was recorded. The shortage of qualified specialist teachers of science and mathematics remained acute and the supply of specialist teachers of art, technical and domestic subjects and music, and of women teachers of physical education, was again insufficient to meet the demands of Authorities.
I remember, when I was on the Advisory Council, how very difficult it was, and I know it still is, to obtain accurate figures of the number of teachers, trainees, and so on; and I am glad that the Secretary of State has appointed a working party to advise him on the facts. But the broad position is not in dispute. While today there are over 32,000 teachers employed in Scottish schools, which is a very high figure, no fewer than 900 of these teachers are uncertificated, with no claims to training or qualifications at all; and 3,000 of them are married women, many of whom probably, will soon want to return to their homes. If you took away all those—that is roughly 4,000—the present admittedly acute position would become virtually impossible.

Lord Dunglass: How many uncertificated teachers did the hon. Gentleman say there were?

Mr. Stewart: I think there are 900. Thanks to the success of the Emergency Training Scheme, which the Advisory Council recommended and which has been pushed forward with commendable energy by the training colleges, who deserve great praise, the total number of trainees is high, even by pre-war standards. It looks as if the overall recruitment might just about meet our need for the next two years or so, provided, of


course, the present 900 and 3,000 teachers, of whom I have spoken, remain where they are.
But, of course, the supply of the Emergency Training Scheme will soon dry up. There are another 1,700 students to come, and when they have been put in the schools, there will be no more. Moreover, the school population is rapidly rising. We are coming to the stage of the bulge, about which we were so concerned in the days of the Advisory Council. There is certain to be a large increase of new pupils owing to the rise in the birthrate some years ago. It will simply not do to wait hopefully until then, without taking any special measures, trusting that somehow, by some means, enough teachers will be there to cope with this increased flow of children. We must act now, this year, if we are to ensure the staffing of our schools is adequate to meet this increased demand.
What troubles me most about all this is the reduction in graduate teachers. According to the Report, in 1930 the proportion of graduates to non-graduates was 3 to 1. Today it is something like three graduates to five undergraduates. In October, 1948, the number of teachers qualified under Chapter Five, that is to say honours graduates, was 590 fewer than in 1939. That is a very disturbing figure.
The pride and glory of Scottish education in the old days used to be based mainly on the high attainments of the senior teachers. Now, if the signs are as we think they are, those men and women are no longer offering themselves to the service of education, at any rate not to the same extent as before. Something is happening to deflect their interest. If that be so, it is our duty fearlessly to inquire into the causes and, if need be, to reconsider the whole problem of the status, amenities and emoluments which we offer to the teaching profession.
It is not for the Committee to lay down any details. Parliament provides the greater part, but only part, of the total cost of education. The local authorities have to be considered and there is, of course, a proper place for the examination of details of salary, namely the National Joint Council. It is their business to inquire into these matters and to make recommendations. But, it would be foolish for this Committee to imagine that

because of the existence of the National Joint Council we can disinterest ourselves in this matter and "pass the buck" to them. It will not do, because Parliament and the Government remain ultimately responsible. The responsibility is squarely upon our shoulders, here, to ensure that the education of our children is properly carried out.
If, as I believe—and I hope this will not be regarded as too controversial—the trouble with the teachers and their salaries is due mainly to the mistaken policy of His Majesty's Government in its different fields of activity, then we have a right to demand reconsideration of that policy. The fact is that the old established relationship between the various professions and callings have been completely altered during the last few years. That is the whole root of the problem.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNeil): I should like a little more information about this. Would the hon. Gentleman give a little more detail? I should like to understand his argument.

Mr. Stewart: I shall be coming to that if the right hon. Gentleman will have a little patience. I was talking about the lack of balance. I suppose some hon. Members will have seen the cartoon in "Punch" a little time ago; it was a picture of a new school in the course of construction, with a figure in academic dress reading a poster on the gate. The poster said "Skilled hands wanted. Bricklayers, carpenters and plumbers £7 10s. a week. Schoolmasters £6 10s." It bore the grimly ironical title "Building for the future." That is what I mean by the ill-balance which is now everywhere to be seen.
Now what are the facts for which the right hon. Gentleman asked? Since 1945, while almost every other class of the community has enjoyed increases and sometimes substantial increases of income, the great body of Scottish teachers have had their salaries completely frozen. Everybody else has had rises: the teachers by and large have had none. Meanwhile, every item in the cost of living has risen, and, to make matters worse—and this is what galls the teachers, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows very well—the nationalised boards and services in Scotland have been ostentatiously advertising posts for men and women, with no


higher qualifications than teachers', at salaries which no member of the teaching profession could ever hope to attain. That really gets under the skin of even the most loyal and public spirited teacher in any part of the country. How foolish and foolhardy it is to have allowed the craze for Socialism so to upset the whole social system.
I do not deny that I am perturbed by the rising cost education as a whole. No responsible person can be other than perturbed. Before the war it amounted to £14 million. Today it amounts to £32 million. In 1946, after the increase in salaries had taken effect, the cost of teaching a Scottish child was, on the average, £30 a year. Today it is over £40 a year—an increase of one-third in those two or three years. It is a staggering increase.
In these circumstances, prudent economies in every department are surely essential. All unnecessary trimmings must clearly go at this time. The falderals of the faddists—and they are always there—must be stamped out. The austerity which the rest of the country has to suffer must be borne in its due share by the schools.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Miss Herbison): Would the hon. Gentleman give us some idea of what these falderals are, and where we might make these cuts?

Mr. Stewart: I hope the hon. Lady will not ask me to do that. [Laughter.] I do not want to take up too much time, but surely we ail know on all our education committees a few faddists who would have all sorts of falderals in the schools, and who have to be stamped upon. This is not a party point at all. They are to be found as much on our side as on the other side of the Committee. I should have thought there was no argument at all on this point. If there is any argument, let me make it plain that we on this side of the Committee take that view.

Mr. McInnes: Would the hon. Member give one example?

Mr. Stewart: I could give a great many, but I have a speech to make; it is somewhat long, and I want to make it.

Mr. Manuel: Some of us have been members of education

committees, and would like a little more clarity on this point. The hon. Member has mentioned falderals in connection with Scottish education. Can he mention one that he would like to do away with?

Mr. Stewart: I could mention far more than one, but I choose to make my speech in my own way.

Mr. McNeil: It is very unfair to the education committees.

Mr. Stewart: I am not being unfair but, as everybody knows, there are always to be found in different parts of the country some of these enthusiasts who have to be kept in place. That is all I said. Reasonable prudent economy has certainly got to be applied at this time, but I should like to add this—and perhaps I shall have the support of hon. Members opposite. Parsimony in the supreme educational duty of attracting and keeping qualified, and particularly highly qualified, teachers is neither economy nor good sense. I trust that we shall have from the Parliamentary Secretary when she replies a clear indication of the Government's views on this matter.
The question of salaries has now been handed over to the Secretary of State by the teachers' representatives.

Mr. McNeil: No.

Mr. Stewart: That is one's understanding of the situation.

Mr. McNeil: The hon. Gentleman should read the answers.

Mr. Stewart: I have read the answers, and I think it is true to say that the teachers' representatives have made it perfectly clear to the Joint Council that they cannot accept the conclusions reached by the Council and they have approached the right hon. Gentleman direct. If I have misread the facts, no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will put me right about it. I am only saying that he has, unfortunately for himself perhaps, responsibility in this matter, and I am seeking information as to his intentions. I am asking now on behalf of my hon. Friends what the Government intend to do in this very serious matter.
I come next to accommodation. Here, too, the Report is refreshingly outspoken It says:
It is accommodation which will be the limiting factor of educational development during the next decade.


I am sure that is true. The question is, how are we dealing with it? Let me acknowledge the success of the H.O.R.S.A. scheme. It has been a fine effort. There were moments of great anxiety when these huts were being built. There were episodes—I can give details if required—of considerable muddle on the part of the Ministry of Works while these new buildings were being erected. But, with the amazing gift for compromise which is typical of our people, and with the remarkable initiative of the local teachers, administrators and so on, the local authorities have got through with the job, and large numbers of children are now established there in considerable comfort.
The H.O.R.S.A. scheme stage has passed. We are now entering upon a new stage, and it is a very difficult stage. We have reached the stage where substantial new housing estates are rising and nearing completion, and one hears of very few cases where the provision of schools in these new estates has been adequately met. Glaring examples, such as in Glasgow, of which the right hon. Gentleman is surely aware, crowd upon one's attention, where it would seem that planning has simply been swept off the board altogether. We have had our little troubles in Fife as well. All over the country local authorities are now at their wits' end to know how to provide school accommodation for these great new housing estates.
In a somewhat glowing example of understatement the Report informs us:
The results in several areas have been disappointing.
That is certainly an understatement. The Report is a little more realistic when it explains later on:
Delays in erection"—
of new schools—
have been due, in some instances, to scarcity of labour and materials, the slow delivery of boilers, radiators and piping being specially irksome.
We all know that that sort of thing has happened, that there have been shortages and still are shortages all round. The odd thing is that although the Report says so, are we not told every day in answer to questions here that under the guidance of this marvellous Government there are no housing material shortages at all? It is very odd. I hope the hon. Lady will

be able to comfort us on these subjects and to offer us some real assurances that we shall avoid the grim necessity of pouring the new school populations not into new schools but into that ogre which she has often passionately criticised, the overcrowded class. I want her attention on this point; we want some information upon the matter of building and I invite her to offer some real assurances.
I should have liked to examine the problems of equipment, upon which we are spending a great deal of money in Fife—and with very little guidance from the Department; and I shall gladly go into that matter with the Minister, if I am allowed to do so. I should like to have dealt with the problem of after-school education, a subject in which, as the Committee will remember, I have always had great interest. My anxiety about it has not been lessened by the disclosure in the Report that less than one in five of young workers aged 15 to 18 successfully attend any kind of continuation classes. I think that is a staggering figure. If ever there was a case for the junior colleges, upon which I still pin my faith, here is that case.

Mr. Woodburn: On the subject of junior colleges, one of the problems has been building. It is estimated that a junior college takes about the same amount of labour and material as 200 houses. How many houses should we give up in order to build junior colleges?

Mr. Stewart: I have heard the right hon. Gentleman say that two or three times before. I should like to deal with it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am not avoiding anything; I beg the Committee to believe that; I should have liked to deal with it, but in a wide field such as this and when time is so limited, one must be selective, and I have been able to select only some of the items out of a great many in this Report.
I should like to turn to the difficult and, I think, crucial problem of the form and content of education, with particular reference to secondary education and the teaching of citizenship. I know that the hon. Lady will be interested in this and I informed her earlier that I intended to raise the subject. I think the Committee would agree with me that it is for the most part from the secondary


education in our schools that we draw our future leaders in commerce, industry, trade, in the arts, in learning, in the professions and so on. The question is, how are we instructing these young people, upon whose wisdom and ability we shall so much depend in the years to come?
In this case the Secretary of State cannot plead any lack either of counsel or of inspiration. The Report on Secondary Education of the Advisory Council in 1946 was acclaimed in all quarters. Leading educationalists in all parts of the world—in all parts of the civilised world, at any rate—paid tribute to its thoroughness, to its vision and to its good sense. I was a member of that Council, but I played a small part in it, and when I speak of the Council I speak really of my colleagues. My part was not that of the expert; all I was able to do sometimes was to encourage these splendid men to express their views, so that I can speak with real modesty about this.
The Department and three successive Secretaries of State have had nearly four years in which to weigh the recommendations of the Advisory Council. The strange thing is that never, during that lengthy period, have the Government issued any pronouncement upon its general spirit and tenor. I think this is a very serious matter and I put it to the right hon. Gentleman not as a critic but as one who is anxious to see things put right. The silence of the Government in this matter has out-Trappisted the Trappists themselves and, considering the nature of the issue, that is a remarkable and somewhat disturbing fact.
Let me tell the Committee something about the Report on Secondary Education. Whatever its faults, the Report tried to see universal education as related to post-war Scotland and to indicate what changes were necessary in educational purpose, organisation, methods and examinations to make the relationship a healthy one. The Council saw clearly that our secondary education was still far too dominated by its academic origin, and too much preoccupied with what one might call book-based instruction.
We concluded—and our views were supported by all the evidence before us; and we sought evidence from all parts

of the country and all parts of the world—that three essentials were gravely neglected in our secondary education. The first, and I think I carry the Committee with me on this, was the need of adolescence for activity and relevance in its school work. There is not enough of it. Secondly, the cultivation of the emotional and the aesthetic sides of human nature by a more generous treatment of—

Mr. McNeil: Falderals?

Mr. Stewart: Might I conclude the sentence? I was saying—by a more generous treatment of music, drama, dancing and the visual arts. I regard none of these as falderals. Thirdly, emphasis on the school as a community. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not laugh about this.

Mr. McNeil: I am not laughing. I am expressing my inability to pick out what the hon. Gentleman means by falderals.

Mr. Stewart: I was not talking about falderals. I was talking about the aesthetic sides of human nature, about which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is thoroughly sympathetic. The third section of our secondary education which is neglected is the emphasis on the school as a community to ensure that practice of social virtues and the creation of those dispositions of man which are essential for a democratic community.
To achieve those ends we made two major requests. First, we asked for a variety of experimentation and a temper of resource and initiative on the part of Scottish teachers, which we did not conside compatible with the continuance of external examinations as we have known them. This is a very important point. Secondly, we asked for some easing, not necessarily of essential standards, but of the amount of factual information required of boys and girls at all stages, in order that schools might have time to give training in social living and to cultivate the active sides of human nature, as well as the purely cognative. In other words: while trying to teach the boy to know his mathematics and history, we wanted to see him come out of school a real citizen, with a full appreciation of the duties and responsibility of a member of this great community. That is what we were seeking to achieve.
It may be said, on superficial examination of the matter, that the Minister's silence on these big issues leaves him uncommitted, but his refusal—and I do not refer to the right hon. Gentleman, who has been in office only a short time, but to the Government—to do more than tinker with the examination system and to offer a few minor changes in the new Code must, unless the Minister denies it today, be regarded as a rejection of the philosophy of the Report. That will be a serious thing, and I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. But do the Government realise how deeply they have disappointed all the enlightened teachers and administrators in Scotland by not stating their views plainly, and not least have disappointed the very gifted and devoted men, not including myself, who served on the Council?
I wish I could take the right hon. Gentleman back to the atmosphere of the Council. For a short time the Under-Secretary of State was a member of the Council, but he was then removed to a higher place. Let me describe the scene at the end. We were engaged on that Council—in the middle of the war, let us remember—upon what we thought was a great adventure. Projecting our minds forward into the peace, we were seeking to build some part of the brave new world for which all of us were striving—a world where the blessings of higher education would be available to all, for the benefit of all. That was what we were striving to do, and I remember the thrill and excitement that prevailed as we sat round the table at St. Andrew's House at the end of deliberations that had lasted two or three years. One felt one had made some real contribution to a higher standard of life and to a higher culture for the whole of our people.
It is disappointing, as the right hon. Gentleman will understand, having done all that and having gone through that somewhat emotional experience, to find not one single word said about it for four years. The importance of it is this. That Council sat there for three years or more. It offered reports on many subjects. I am sure I speak for all my colleagues on the Council when I say that the Secondary Report was regarded by us

as the basis of it all. It was on that basis that the edifice was to be built.
If the Government have no views on that Report, it upsets the whole of the recommendations that we offered. Of course the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to reject the Report if he wants to; in which case he might tell us—and ought to tell us now. Equally he is entitled to say, "I accept some parts of it and I reject others." All right, then let him declare himself, and tell us why he rejects those views. But I do beg him to make a public declaration of where he stands on this matter of the post-war educational structure in Scotand.
Why do I say that? Not only because some of us are disappointed. Perhaps that does not matter. The right hon. Gentleman must know that some education authorities—indeed, all education authorities—have considered the recommendations of the Secondary Report and would like to implement many of them. They cannot do it now without guidance and approval from the Department. At present they have no encouragement from the Department, and they are hanging back. I speak with knowledge of what has happened in Fife. The Director of Education there is keen to introduce some of these new ideas, which he regards as good ideas, but without a clear expression of the views of the Department he is not able to do so.
Here, therefore, is the crux of the educational problem in Scotland. We are all anxious to produce from our schools, especially from our secondary schools, the very best of young men and women. I say to the right hon. Gentleman—and I have given some thought to this, and speak for others more knowledgeable than I am—that until he declares clearly that he accepts the broad principles, the underlying philosophy, of that enlightened Report, we shall not progress in Scotland. Indeed, we shall definitely hold up progress. There is the opportunity which I respectfully offer to the right hon. Gentleman tonight. If he will make such a declaration he will do something good for Scottish education.

4.23 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Miss Herbison): I am sure that every Member of this Committee will be very pleased that the Opposition decided


to take one of our two precious Supply Days to discuss this very important question of education. The hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Stewart) has raised quite a number of points and problems that have been exercising the minds not only of the Ministers and the Department, but, I think, of all who are interested in education in Scotland. I hope before I sit down to deal with the main points that have been raised by the hon. Gentleman.
He spent some time on accommodation. He suggested that accommodation for junior colleges might be found. I began to wonder as I listened to the first part of his speech. He spoke about the great increase, even since 1946, in the amount of money that was being spent on education, and he talked about falderals, but he gave us no indication of how he would save money. As he went on, he spoke about other things that would increase very greatly the expenditure on education. I suggest that the Committee really has the right to know whether the hon. Gentleman can name one or two instances where money is being spent foolishly in Scotland. Our problems are so great, and money is not just easily available; and if he could give us any advice on this matter, I can assure him, his advice would be carefully examined, and the money would be saved if it could possibly be saved. However, he has been very careful indeed merely to throw out a statement and not follow it up in any way.
In 1947 and 1948 the main concern, as far as accommodation was concerned, was in respect of the raising of the school-leaving age. I was very interested to note that, at the annual general meeting of the Educational Institute of Scotland, there was a resolution down for discussion which suggested that the school-leaving age ought to be lowered to 14. We have heard that case put by the Opposition in this Chamber. The interesting point was that that resolution obtained only two supporters. So it seems very clear that the teachers of Scotland, who have been faced with all the difficulties of the raising of the school-leaving age—and there have been difficulties—are quite certain that to raise the age was the correct thing to do.
The programme for the raising of the school-leaving age under H.O.R.S.A. is uncompleted now, but almost complete. The problem that we are faced with now, as we have been faced with it during the

past year, and with which we shall be faced for some years to come, is to provide accommodation for the schools for new housing areas, and also for the increased population, due first to the high birth rate that has followed the war, and secondly to something else—a factor that, I am sure, gladdens us all—the large reduction in the infant mortality rate. In other words, where we have improvements—improvements in the housing of the people, improvements in the health of the people—through the work of other Government Departments, they add greater difficulties for education; but those difficulties are not difficulties that we shall be unwilling to face.
Although considerable progress was made with building in 1949, it would be foolish of me—indeed, I would say it would be quite irresponsible of me—to say that in all the areas that progress was either equal or satisfactory. Aberdeen City, as hon. Members may see from the Report, provides an outstanding example of what an education authority has been able to achieve, in spite of all the postwar difficulties, in the building of schools. The Report deals with the shortages of materials and of trained technical staff that have hindered the programme; but it would seem also that certain local authorities concentrated on housing to the detriment of school building.
We have tried to examine this as fairly as we could. School building has been one of the Department's most pressing anxieties, and in some instances pressure had to be brought on some local authorities so that they might reach full realisation of the need in their areas. The Department are most anxious at all times to help education authorities, and I think I am safe in saying that today we are fairly confident now that education authorities in Scotland are fully aware of the great need for drive and imagination in providing adequate accommodation. While that awareness is there, we shall get drive behind the tackling of this problem.
It will be some years before the accommodation is adequate to meet all the various needs of education, particularly when we realise that one of our chief aims must be the lowering of the size of classes in primary schools. We have always had this in front of us, and sometimes when I hear speeches on education I wish that something had been done to help solve


this problem when it was so easy to do it. When I, for example, finished training, I was told by the Lanarkshire Education Authority that there would not be a place for me for three years; young women trained in Scotland had to go to England to find jobs; classes were very large in those days, but although the teachers and the material were there, very little was done by the authorities or the Department of those days to use what they had at hand.
Since the end of the war, new places have been provided for 66,525 pupils; of these, 38,340 have been under the H.O.R.S.A. scheme, and 28,185 places have been provided in buildings erected by education authorities. In this year, 1950, £5.39 million have been allocated to school building, and the greatest proportion of this money will be spent on new school building. I have tried to find out what sum of money was spent on school building between the wars, and I find that in the peak year in that period the sum was £1.3 million. It is true that that would be equivalent to £4 million today, but even with that adjustment we are, in 1950, spending more money on school building that has ever before been spent in this country.
Indeed, if we take all the years between the wars, we find that the amount spent on school building of all kinds was under £1 million each year. The expected allocations—and I must stress "expected allocations"—for 1951 and 1952 are £6.75 million and £7.5 million. The Government are most anxious that every penny of these allocations shall be used, and I say today to education authorities that they must see to it that all of that money is used. If they use it, I shall not quarrel with them if they come back and ask for more, although I could not be at all certain that they would be able to get it.
That is the whole reason why the cost of education has increased as it has since 1946, and that is not a falderal; it certainly has taken a very large part of our money spent on education. The hon. Member for Fife, East, suggested that from 1946 the increase in the cost of each place had been around 30 per cent. I wonder if he could give me today any primary commodity that has increased by less than 30 per cent. during the same

period. When we remember, as he stressed, how important education is for our children, I feel that at this stage, where we have been spending this money and will spend more, it will be well spent.
I now come to the problem of staffing. At the end of the war there was a great shortage of teachers. This deficiency we have tried to make good in two ways: one through the normal supply of teachers and one by the emergency training scheme. The hon. Member for Fife, East, said that very soon we would have in our schools all of those that the emergency scheme can give us. That is perfectly true; but I hope to give figures which show that the number of those who are entering through normal channels is increasing. It is certainly not as great as we wish, or sufficient to meet the many needs, but it is also increasing. In 1938–39, 1,218 students entered training colleges; in 1945–46, this number had dropped to 1,163. I shall not weary the Committee with all the figures, but it has been increasing each year, and in 1949–50 it went up to 1,581.
Those figures show a steady rise, but the hon. Gentleman was quite right in stressing one very disquieting feature: that the proportion of non-graduates has increased very much. It is well known that the Educational Institute of Scotland has been asking for a very long time that entrance to teaching should be only through graduation. Before the war that was the case for men but not for women. I think that perhaps one of the reasons—and it is amongst women only—for this great increase in non-graduates is that many of those girls who would have gone to the university to take their arts or science course, could not get a place in the university because so many of the places were kept for ex-Service men. I am not giving that as the sole reason, and I hope that we shall be able to return to at least the pre-war proportion of graduates to non-graduates.
By 30th April this year 10,147 applications for the emergency scheme had been interviewed out of a total number applying of over 13,000; of those, 5,282 had been accepted, 46 had been accepted conditionally, and 4,819 had been rejected. Of those accepted, 3,680 have already entered upon training, and it is estimated that 3,480 of those emergency


teachers will have completed their training by the end of this year.
I was interested to see these words in the editorial of the E.I.S. Journal:
The most outstanding feature about the boards' work"—
these were the boards who interviewed the emergency students—
is that they did not allow the present needs of the educational situation to obscure their judgment of the ultimate needs of education, and no consideration of quantity induced them to relax their demand for quality first. The best evidence of this is contained in the fact that of 13,427 applicants 4,485 were sifted as potential teachers.
Now, that is very important, because we have found a confusion in the minds of many Scottish people who are regarding those trained under the emergency scheme as unqualified or uncertificated teachers. Great praise has been given in the training colleges, and in the schools where some of them are now working, to the type of young man and woman that the emergency scheme has attracted into our schools. Miss Kettles said in her presidential address:
It has been distressing to me to hear and read adverse criticism of these men and women. I do not contend that they are perfect; but neither do I contend that all those who enter by the normal channels are perfect.
I do give this assurance to the Committee: that this question of supply is one that is exercising the minds of both Ministers and Department very much, and it was for that reason that the Secretary of State decided to set up this working committee. That will not solve the problem, but we hope that as a result it will give us a clear picture, and perhaps from that picture we shall be able to take steps to solve the problem.
Now I come to the vexed question of salaries. I do not suppose the Committee will expect me to say much about this question today. It is true that education authorities must pay to their teachers salaries in accordance with the scales prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State, but the Secretary of State has to give cognizance to any recommendations that are made to him by the National Joint Council. On the National Joint Council are representatives of local education authorities and representatives of the teachers in equal numbers. They have always an independent Chairman, and Lord Teviot

occupies that position at the present time.
In August, 1949, the National Joint Council were asked by the Department to make recommendations for new scales to date from 1st April, 1951, and they were asked much earlier this time than previously in order that we would have these new scales ready to go into operation on 1st April, 1951. After many meetings, the recommendations were provisionally agreed between the two sides, and these recommendations came to our Department. These, as hon. Members are no doubt aware, were not accepted by the general body of teachers. The National Joint Council has now written to the Secretary of State reporting that they have been unable to reach agreement. The Secretary of State is most anxious that this problem of salaries should be settled, and he asked Lord Teviot to meet him, so that he might discuss with him what were the next steps that might follow. That meeting took place between Lord Teviot and the Secretary of State this afternoon. We hope that it will be possible from that meeting for steps to be taken that will ultimately solve this problem.
In speaking of this problem of salaries, the hon. Member said that the supply of teachers—and it is often said particularly of teachers of science and mathematics—was hindered by the fact of salaries, and he compared these salaries with the salaries of doctors, dentists and people in our nationalised industries. I should be the first to say that salaries play an important part in attracting teachers to their work, but I am certain from my examination of this problem that there are other important factors.
The main competitor today, particularly for teachers of science and mathematics, is industry and commerce. Since the war industry and commerce have been making much more use of scientific knowledge and its application. This new awareness and the fact of our flourishing industry as compared with pre-war years mean that many who would otherwise have entered the teaching profession have entered industry or commerce. I can remember that in 1930 or 1931 my own brother completed his honours science degree. He had no intention of entering teaching. He wanted to go into industry, but at that time industry was


not aware, to the same extent as it is today, of the need for scientific knowledge. There were many unemployed people and unemployed factories, and because of that my brother and many other young men entered teaching who today would have gone into industry.
I make these points because I am sure that Members of the Committee would want to see all the different facets of this very serious problem, and also to know that much thought is being given by the Minister and by the Department to this problem. I read very carefully the Educational Institute of Scotland Journal, and I noticed that Miss Kettles, in her presidential address, used these words:
The remuneration offered for teaching has never been adequate and in pre-war years failed to attract a sufficient number of men and women of the right calibre and personality to enter the profession.
This is no new problem, but it is a problem which, if we want to get our education as it ought to be, we have to face.
Quite a large part of the hon. Member's speech was devoted to the Report of the Advisory Council on Secondary Education. He seemed to suggest that the Minister had done nothing whatever to implement any of the recommendations in that Report.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: No.

Miss Herbison: That was the impression I got, and I will leave it to other people to read HANSARD and form their own conclusions.

Mr. Stewart: I did not say anything of the sort. What I said was that no Minister had pronounced upon the general tenor of the Report, and I stand by that statement. That is true.

Miss Herbison: There may or there may not have been a pronouncement—I cannot be sure of that—but I say that in education, as in everything else, we are judged by actions and not by pronouncements, and I want to show what action has been taken by previous Ministers on this Report.
Before dealing with this matter, I should like to pay a most sincere tribute to the members of the Advisory Council. They

have given for some years now unsparingly of their time in devoted work on these problems of education. It is true, as the hon. Gentleman said, that this Report today is not only known in this island but in almost every corner of the world where people are interested in education. The Department and the Minister had naturally first to examine this Report and its recommendations. After that examination had taken place, we had discussions with the associations of education authorities and of directors of education. We had discussions with the teachers' associations and also with the Scottish Universities Entrance Board. All this took time, but as a result of these discussions we have made certain changes.
If we take the recommendation on the school leaving record, the Council's recommendation that there should be no external examination for pupils leaving school at 15 and that a pupil leaving then should receive instead a record of his work, has been accepted. I should have thought from the hon. Member's speech that he had not been aware of that fact.

Mr. Stewart: I am thoroughly aware of it.

Miss Herbison: The hon. Member's speech did not suggest that. The Advisory Council in their Report state:
Any attempt to institute for pupils of 15 a certificate based on a national or indeed on any form of external test would, in our opinion, be calamitous in its effects on the short courses and foredoomed to failure. It would arrest the healthy movement from the bookish and verbal to the practical and realistic just where that change is most necessary, and would tend to a sterile uniformity instead of the free experiment and spirit of adventure we so greatly desire.
I am wholeheartedly in agreement with that. The Minister and the Department agreed, and, after discussion it was decided that there would be no such thing as a Government or external examination.
This school-leaving record will be issued to all pupils when they leave school, including those who gain the Scottish Leaving Certificate, and it will relate not only to the work of the classroom but to—a very important thing—the other activities which we find in the schools today. A draft of the record has been published to the bodies interested, and the Department at the present time


is considering the observations that these bodies have made on it.
Now we come to the Scottish Leaving Certificate. The Council's recommendation is that in place of the Higher Leaving Certificate—what we call the Senior Leaving Certificate—which is normally taken in the fifth year at our Scottish schools, there should be two examinations, one in the fourth year and one in the fifth year, for the reasons given in the first part dealing with examinations for 15-year-olds. I think that might be a retrograde step. It has been decided not to have this examination at the end of the fourth year. The present examination will continue in the fifth year for the Senior Leaving Certificate, which has been re-named the Scottish Leaving Certificate; but the following changes have been made.
The certificate is now awarded to any candidate who obtains one or more subject passes, and not, as hitherto, to those who obtain passes in a group of five subjects. In and after 1951, in the fourth year a pupil may be presented for award of a certificate in that year in as many subjects on the lower grade as he is considered by the school authorities fit to attempt, provided he intends to leave school at the end of his fourth year. In 1951, a lower grade paper in English will be introduced—there have always been lower grade papers in other subjects, but never in English. The lower grade papers in certain other subjects will be adapted to make them more suitable to the fourth year pupil.

Captain Duncan: I had to present some of these Senior Leaving Certificates a week ago, and I noticed the new form they took. Is the new form understood by industry, because unless industry accepts them and understands them—I found it somewhat difficult myself—it may be a little difficult for pupils to find suitable jobs?

Miss Herbison: So far as I am aware, all the people concerned in industry, as well as others, were notified of this, and an explanation was made of what these certificates stand for. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) seemed to think that we were lowering the standard. We are not. It does not mean that the standard required for the award will be lower in any way. It will

remain exactly the same as at present. This is important, because passes in this examination are accepted by the Scottish universities.

Mr. William Ross: Is it not a fact that fewer pupils obtained passes this year than the year before, indicating that the standard was probably higher this year than the year before?

Miss Herbison: I do not want to take part in that argument. All I would say is that the standard was not lower this year, nor will it be lower in the future. One very important thing that will result from this new certificate is that a certificate will be given to every boy and girl who takes the examination showing what passes have been obtained. I am certain that that is something everyone ought to have.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Like school sports—prizes for all?

Miss Herbison: That remark is not worth notice.
One of the recommendations of the Advisory Council was the introduction of advanced papers in the post-certificate year to provide a suitable objective for pupils of superior ability. That is under consideration, and the standard of these papers will, of course, be well above the standard of the higher grade papers set in the fifth year.
There are many other recommendations in the Report, and with most of them the Secretary of State is in general agreement. Effect has been given to many of these in the revised issue of the code, and also in a series of circulars and memoranda dealing with organisation and the curricula of the secondary schools. There is only one other recommendation with which I want to deal—I am surprised that the hon. Member did not refer to it—which I regard as one of the most important recommendations of the Advisory Council. In paragraph 143, we find these words:
Subject to what we say in paragraphs 161 and 180 to 182, we have reached the definite view, which accords with the conclusions of the teachers' organisations and of the Association of Directors of Education, that the omnibus secondary school best embodies the ideals of the new age; and, except where impracticable we prefer it to any other type of organisation. And, by an omnibus school, we mean one which accepts all the post-primary pupils of


a community or of a given area. Such a school embraces the whole range of secondary education, not in time only, but in diversity of courses, and in provision for different intelligence levels, from the highest down to that at which the pupil ceases to find a place in the normal school.
I hope that the hon. Member is in complete accord with that important statement. I agree with it wholeheartedly.
The omnibus school, or what I would prefer to call the comprehensive secondary school is nothing new in secondary education in Scotland. From 1940 to 1945, I taught in a school that could be classified as a comprehensive secondary school. We are often told that we can only have them if the numbers are huge, but that is not true. In that school there were between 700 and 800 boys, ranging in ability from the very bright to the dull, and although the dull ones had no hope of ever receiving a Higher Leaving Certificate, many of them remained at school until they were at the end of the fifth year. Although they did not get a certificate, they got something terribly important for them in after life.
The Report gives many valid reasons why children at the age of 11 or 12 should not be segregated according to expected ability. I use this word "expected" with all its element of error. I am sure that those Members who have not read this part of the Report will find it very interesting to do so. All of us are quite certain that children do not develop either physically or mentally at the same rate. It is quite wrong at the age of 11-plus or 12-plus to condemn a child to one of two types of secondary education. We hope—one of the memoranda is going out to the authorities—that our local education authorities will adopt this form of secondary education wherever possible.
The hon. Member spoke about junior colleges. I am sure it is the desire of every Member that we get these junior colleges as quickly as we can, but it would be irresponsible on my part if I told the Committee that there is any chance of getting them sooner. I feel that they are important, because it is nonsense to think that when a child leaves school at 15, no matter how good the course the child has had at school, he has received sufficient education to carry him throughout life; that is, if we think of him in the future as being a live person ready to

make a positive contribution to society. That is how we must think of our young people, if we are interested in their whole life.
Unless these young people see clearly the meaning to the country and the world of the work they do, and are trained to do it well, and unless they see the importance of playing their proper part in the affairs of their own community and of the country, there will be very little hope either for British industry or for British local or national forms of Government. All of these things depend, not only on the child being trained up to 15, but on there being further formal education for him and, later, informal education.
It is my view that if we are going to give to our children what they really ought to have, then we must take these most important subjects. It does not mean in the first instance, the setting up of junior colleges. Take day-release as an example. Most of the young people being released for further education on one day a week are apprentices; in other words, our craftsmen of the future. I am glad to say that industry is more and more recognising the importance of technical education for the skilled man of today, and is, indeed, encouraging and facilitating where possible attendance of these boys at technical colleges. The curriculum at these day-release colleges is in the main of subjects that help in the work for which the boy is training, but again, with the help of those who are giving them time off from industry, the boys have physical education and education in some social subjects.
I believe that not only is further education of this kind profoundly important for the whole future of our country, but also we shall learn from our experience of it many lessons that will be extremely valuable and capable of being applied, both in further education and in the education that we are doing in the schools. I do not want to see a clear cut division between the education that we have in the schools and the education that we have in further education. Many lads, indeed, whose schools careers have been far from distinguished, show great interest and great promise when the subjects they study can be related to the needs of the world and to the choice of occupation.
I regret that we are short of technical colleges. Educational authorities are doing what they possibly can to help industry in this matter. So far as our limited resources are concerned, we in the Department wish to do everything we can to help improve the facilities, and today I say both to the authorities and to industry: "Press on as hard as you can with day-release classes, and we will give you all the help we possibly can."
I want now to deal with another part of cost in education, particularly the cost since 1947, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife, will tell me if this is one of the costs he regrets as a falderal, because I am still exercising my mind as to what it is. It can safely be said that we have taken great strides since the end of the war in making equality of opportunity in education really effective for our Scottish children. The Social Insurance Acts and family allowances have played a great part in this achievement, as have also the results of the bursary regulations of 1947 and 1949.
In 1938–39 we spent on school bursaries—that was for those who remained at school in their fourth and fifth years—£97,932. In 1948–49 that sum had gone up by almost £100,000 to a total of £192,075. In 1938–39 we spent on post school bursaries for those at technical colleges and universities the sum of £104,747. In 1948–49 that had grown to £821,347. [Interruption.] I cannot follow the mumblings of the hon. Member for Edinburgh. South (Sir W. Darling) on the front Opposition bench below the Gangway, hut I expect that the hon. Gentleman will say that money does not go so far these days, or words to that effect.

Sir William Darling: I know that. I would not say that.

Miss Herbison: I hope the hon. Gentleman was not saying that this was too much money.
I am delighted that the Department and the local authorities are doing what they are doing today. As a teacher before I became a Member of Parliament and also as a citizen. I was continually appalled at the wastage of talent in our country. That was tragic not only for the young people themselves, but for our

country. No country could ever afford what we wasted for many years, and it always seemed to me that no Government governs well unless it exploits all its available resources. One of the finest resources that we in Scotland have is the talent and intelligence of our people. With these increases in bursaries, both to the 15-year-olds and to those at universities, we have come near to equality of opportunity in education. Equality of opportunity is of very great importance but what that opportunity provides is of equal importance.
Much has been achieved in education in Scotland, but much still remains to be achieved. Our education plan—and this is why I am delighted with the reports, both primary and secondary, of the Advisory Council—must fit the child, and not the child fit into some rigid form of education. It must aim at preparing the child for a full life, not merely preparing him for work, which is important, but preparing him for his leisure. The aim of all who are interested in education—hon. Members in this Committee, the Minister responsible for education, our Department, the local authorities, the teachers, and the parents—should be that nothing but the best in education will suffice for our Scottish children.

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I happen to know that there are nearly 20 Members who wish to speak, and there are about three hours left for this Debate. Unless the speeches are cut down to 10 minutes each, a good many hon. Members will be disappointed this evening.

5.13 p.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I will endeavour to follow your wise Ruling, Sir Charles, and I will, of course, not attempt to follow the hon. Lady, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, on many of the lines on which she has been progressing. I would say, if I may, how pleasant it is always to hear her speak. because if ever there was an example of the results of our education and of clear enunciation in speech, it comes from the hon. Lady. If I am not being presumptuous, I should like to congratulate her on that. I hope some of the English Members were present to hear her, and I am sure that they will agree with me.
I do not propose in any way this afternoon to try to be popular in what I am going to say. I do not regard this question of education as a party political matter in the slightest degree. Great mistakes have been made in the past in education by Governments of all kinds, and great progress has also been made under Governments of all kinds. I think it was Diogenes, who lived many years ago, who said that the foundations of every state lie in the education of its youth. There is no doubt about that.
As Scots men and women interested in the well-being of our country and in the contribution it can make to the world, what we have to do is to judge by results. Nothing else matters. It is the result of any system which has been brought into operation upon which we must judge—a fact we have to accept. We have to look today to the condition of our country particularly in its outlook on life, the conditions in the homes of the people, whether they have the ability or the intention to accept responsibilities, and to such things as crime, and in particular juvenile delinquency, about which every Member of this Committee is worried.
If we are to judge by results I feel bound to say that we must confess that our educational system has very largely failed. The results are not commensurate with the enormous expenditure of money, effort and good will. There are dreadful figures of juvenile delinquency and of the terrible decline in public morality, not only on the part of youth but very often of the parents too. A large number of those parents were school children not very long before the recent war.
This deterioration of public morality has been going on steadily. The war accelerated it by the breaking up of homes and the tragedies that followed, but our educational system has succeeded very largely, apart from all the good things it has done, in producing children in whom the chief idea seems to be: "What can we get for ourselves out of this system and out of this country?" instead of the supreme ideal: "What can we put into it?" Until we get that position turned round the right way all our plans for education—for buildings, size of classes, etc.—will not be of the slightest use. We must concentrate upon that great object. If any Christian country is to survive, and no state will survive until it is Christian

in the highest sense of the word, we must reverse that process. The right principles must be put into the children's minds from the word "go" in their education. It must be: "What can I do for the good of mankind around me and for the life of my country?"
I have already said that all Governments are to blame for what has gone wrong. They are also entitled to accept the praise for what has gone right. I feel strongly that what we have come to call the "welfare State" is one of the great dangers in the production of that very state of affairs which we hoped the welfare State if set up would avoid.

Mr. Woodburn: There may be hon. Members present who are getting a very unfortunate picture of Scotland from what the hon. and gallant Member is saying. May I ask upon what figures he bases his indictment that there has been such a deterioration in Scottish morality and an increase in Scottish delinquency? Our prisons are less full than those of other countries and juvenile delinquency has gone down. There is also far less drunkenness in Scotland, to my knowledge.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: To begin with, I would not say that my remarks apply to Scotland only, but we are dealing with Scottish education. I would be the last person to run down Scotland as compared with any other country. My remarks apply to Great Britain, and to countries of the world which are far worse than Great Britain. That is the tendency of the world today. I agree in regard to the drunkenness.

Sir T. Moore: That is owing to the high price of drink.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Drunkenness has very largely disappeared. Many efforts were made to reduce it in days gone by, as one of the factors which produced crime. Nevertheless, we have only to keep our ears and eyes open as we go about the streets to discover that public morality has declined. People are today doing things that they would never have dreamed of doing even before the war. We must not put our heads into a bag and pretend that it is not the case. Our whole education system must be judged by these results. The only object of taking a good look round at what we have done or have not


achieved is the need for putting things right. It is no good merely saying that morality has declined and that the educational system has failed unless we say that our great objective must be to put it right before it is too late. I believe that to be the object of every hon. Member in the Committee, especially among those who have been dealing with the education of the country.
Let me give an example of what has been produced by the welfare State. I am not saying that we are not responsible for the welfare State as much as hon. Gentlemen opposite. I accept that. I am not being party political about this matter. We have to realise that a call was made for Civil Defence volunteers and that they did not come. A call has been made for Territorials. They have not come. We do not get volunteers nowadays. Young people say when we tell them to do something: "We will think about it, and probably do it." They do not come forward as they used to do. That is a clear example of faulty education.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: It is the result of conscription.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: That matter will come before us next Wednesday, I understand. We must accept the fact that volunteers for most worthy objects are not coming forward in the way that they would have done, for instance, in 1914. I believe that the teachers of our country are second to none.

Miss Herbison: Before the hon. and gallant Gentleman leaves that subject, I would remind him that he said that some blame could be attributed to the welfare State. He has not shown us how he attributes that blame.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: The idea of the welfare State is that we have only to have this that or the other board set up and they will hand it to us free. We all know that things are not free because we have to pay for them, but that is the attitude that people have towards the welfare State. It is: "You have no need to bother. The State will do it for you." There is no getting away from it that that is what the people of this country feel. It is very wrong. I would not do away with the principles of the welfare State. We have taken a greater part in building up the welfare State than has any other

party in the country. [Laughter.] That statement is capable of proof, starting with the formation of trade unions by a Tory Government in the years gone by. [Laughter.] Yes, "Ha, Ha," but what I have said is true, and it took place in 1824. I do not propose to be drawn aside by these irrelevancies.
I was coming on to the question of teachers in order to say what an admiration I have for those wonderful men and women. It is not an easy job to teach children. The hon. Lady knows that as a schoolmistress, as much as I know it as a parent, but I have only two of them, as compared with a class of 70. Teaching is a profession which calls for the very highest character and the highest degrees of patience and helpfulness. We owe a great debt of gratitude to them, yet we feel that there is sometimes rather an antagonism between parents and teachers. I am not quite sure that sometimes directors of education and potentates of that kind are not much more responsible for these troubles than are the teachers themselves.

Miss Herbison: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and gallant Member again. From my experience, and from the watch that I have kept on education since, I should say that the feeling between parents and teachers is much better today than it was before the war.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I hoped that I had made that clear. I am not saying that it is the fault of the parents or the teachers but that people like directors of education who are unintentionally making the friction that should never have occurred between parents and teachers. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense."] I am not accusing directors of education of doing it deliberately, but we all know, from the correspondence we receive, of people who say: "Why didn't Johnny get a secondary school place? Willie down the road did." They say that that was done by the director of education.
This is a point that the Minister might well look at in order to see that the selection boards under the directors of education are proved to the parents to be entirely just, as I believe them to be, though often there is a misunderstanding that they are not. It should be shown that they are entirely competent to judge of children's merits. Though parents may feel—it is only human nature—that their


children are one degree better than other people's children it should be shown that the selection boards preserve absolute fairness and equality of opportunity, about which the hon. Lady spoke so well, in this matter of going forward to secondary education.
I hope that the Secretary of State and all the education authorities in Scotland will do a little more about teaching Scottish children Scottish history—

Mr. Manuel: Industrial history.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I wish that the hon. Member would get it out of his head that I am making a party political point. I wish that hon. Members opposite would think more of the future and not always of the "terrible past" which, very largely, did not exist. I have taken the precaution of writing to all the county education authorities in Scotland and to the burghs where appropriate, to find out whether Scottish history is taught in Scottish schools. I have been very pleased by the courteous attention which these people have paid to my letter and also very pleased to note that it is very largely taught in Scotland. I also asked what text books were used, and I find that the old Whig text books are still enthroned in most places, giving an entirely false impression of Scottish history—very largely, anyway.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will go into the question of text books for the teaching of Scottish history in Scottish schools because, while we do not in any way wish to prejudice Scottish children against England or do anything so foolish, there has been less teaching of Scottish history up to the Union than there has been of English history in English schools. It is not for me to mention text books, but there is a history in five volumes published recently which brings Scottish history up to date and is more correct than the old Whiggish ideas, and also makes it almost racy and palatable reading for children—which cannot be said about most of the history books with which we were plagued when we were young.

Miss Herbison: Miss Herbison rose—

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I do not wish to be discourteous to the hon. Lady,

but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will deal with anything I have said. Time is going on and I hope to sit down in a moment. I realise that what I have said will probably not have the agreement of a number of hon. Members, but, as I said at the beginning, we must judge education by results, and I do not think that in Scotland or in Great Britain today we can conscientiously say that the results which we see can justify the claim that our educational system has succeeded. It should be our job to find out what is wrong and to do everything we can to put it right. We are doing so much on the material side; I feel that a little more on the mental and spiritual side might put the matter right.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. Hamilton: As I have listened to the Debate my mind has gone gone back to the General Election campaign when I said that in all probability a future Labour Government would raise the school-leaving age to 16. That might have been the most unpopular suggestion that I made in the campaign, even among our own people. I think that is due to the rather lukewarm attitude of the ordinary people towards education, and that attitude is largely due to economic factors. Parents were thinking in terms of the earning power of children between 15 and 16 years of age when I made that suggestion. That is a hangover from the days before the war, when children went into blind alley jobs after 14 to earn a few shillings for the household income.
Despite that, I maintain that education is something of which we cannot get enough, and the working-class children in particular have been neglected in the past in that direction. That is surely admitted on all sides of the House. Because of economic factors they had to leave school at 14, or, even if they had ability, they had not the financial wherewithal to enjoy the advantages of grammar school and university education. I maintain that in the long run, our educational defence is much more important than our military defence from a national point of view. It will be noticed that I said "in the long run."
In the short run we must have a system of priorities when we are considering expenditure on education, defence and all the other services. When the Opposition


talk about raising the salaries of teachers, building new schools or reducing the size of classes, we must immediately ask ourselves whether, if we are to do all these things, we shall do them simultaneously. If we are, then we must reduce our expenditure on other things at the same time, for we cannot have it all ways. There must be a system of priorities, and. inevitably, whatever Government is in power, the system adopted will be questioned by the other side. We have made our priorities, and, naturally, we expect the Opposition to object to them.
The hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) spoke of the failure of education, and based his argument on the fact that there were no volunteers for Civil Defence and the Territorial Army, as volunteers came forward in 1914, the inference being that the educational system which called forth the volunteers in 1914, was superior to the educational system which called forth the volunteers today. Hon. Members on this side and most people in the country who think at all about education, believe that there is no comparison between the education of today and the educational system prior to 1914 in Scotland or in Great Britain generally. We are not satisfied, of course. God forbid that anybody should ever be satisfied with our educational system. Dissatisfaction with any kind of educational system leads to progress if the criticism is constructive, frank and open, and when we criticise it we make constructive suggestions.
What are the great problems facing Scottish education? There are four. The order of priority is a matter of opinion, but I would put them in the following order: first, the inadequacy of teachers' salaries; secondly, the decline in the quality of teachers; thirdly, the slow rate of building of new schools; and, fourthly, overcrowded classes. I speak as a former teacher, an English teacher. As an Englishman intruding in a Scottish Debate I apologise to the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire. My attitude towards salaries during the General Election brought forth a great measure of indignation from the teaching profession. Just before the General Election the teachers of Scotland put forward a claim for a flat rate increase of £7 a week.

I said that that demand was ridiculous, and I still maintain—here again we must face the question of priorities—that there is no evidence of strong public opinion in favour of such an increase for the teachers.
There are far greater priorities among other sections of the community. No doubt the teachers can make a good case in isolation, but when all these claims are being considered by any responsible Government, they must not be considered in isolation from the national economy but in context with it. If that is done, the teachers come well down in the order of priority. I believe the Scottish teachers have weakened their case—I admit they have a case—by over-exaggeration. Let me quote one example—

Lord Dunglass: May I ask the hon. Gentleman for enlightenment? He began by saying that there was an order of priorities and telling the House what was wrong with teaching and education. At the top of the priorities he put salaries. Now he is proceeding to prove that there should be no increase in salaries and that the teachers have no case. Is he arguing for or against?

Mr. Hamilton: I am sorry the noble Lord has not been following my argument. I gave four major problems but I said that their order of priority was a matter of opinion.

Lord Dunglass: But the hon. Member put salaries first on the list.

Mr. Hamilton: I did not say that was my order of priority. If the noble Lord will let me pursue my argument, I was about to quote one example which will prove that the teachers are weakening their case by over-exaggerating their hardships. I have a case here of a married man, with no family whose salary is £432 15s. plus £10, making £442. He says:
I have just received delivery of my first suit since our marriage, and I managed a year ago to afford the luxury of a secondhand pair of shoes.
That to me is absurd in the extreme. To suggest that a married man with no children, getting £9 a week, has to resort to affording the luxury of a secondhand pair of shoes, would make a railway man speechless with anger. That man, I


suppose, will be teaching young children arithmetic and how to manage their affairs.

Mr. Sidney Marshall: How long had he been married?

Mr. Hamilton: Four years. The real problem we are facing is that all people are demanding better conditions. Teachers are demanding better salaries, parents are demanding better schools and better opportunities for their children. They are demanding better education because they are seeing that ability is having its reward today. At the same time we are having demands for better houses, better hospitals and so on. When the Opposition went to the country in the 1950 election and said they would increase teachers' salaries, they did not, to my knowledge, say at the same time that an increase in salaries would inevitably mean an increase in local rates, because we have to get the money from somewhere. Let us make it quite clear to the country that if salaries are increased, then local rates must increase as well.

Mr. S. Marshall: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman? I cannot allow the statement to pass that my party during the election of this year said categorically that we should increase teachers' salaries. I am quite sure that was not a statement made by my party.

Mr. Hamilton: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that his party made no specific promise, but it was implied in their election programme that if they were returned, they would deal with the teachers' salary case sympathetically.

Mr. Marshall: Very likely. The hon. Member's party did the same thing.

Mr. Hamilton: But we are pointing out the position now, in fairness to all sections of the community, that there must be a system of priority and, from the economic aspect, I maintain that the teachers are well down the priority queue, and that if we raise their salaries, local rates must inevitably increase as well.

Mr. Marshall: And taxes.

Mr. Hamilton: That is the unpleasant fact we have to face. That is the economic position. There is, however, another facet to which the hon. Member for Fife,

East (Mr. Henderson Stewart) referred, namely, the social revolution which has taken place since 1945. It is quite true that the teachers as a profession have suffered compared with other sections of the community. We on this side of the Committee are not apologising for that because we regard the mining and other sections of the community as being much worse off pre-war than the teachers, and therefore they had to have a higher priority post-war than the teachers. There has been a change in social values, and we maintain, as we have always maintained, that the miner and the manual worker are as important as the teacher in our community and that their reward must take recognition of that fact.
Now let me deal with the question of unqualified teachers. Reference has been made to the dilution of the profession. We have been told there are 900 uncertificated teachers in the Scottish schools and that the ratio of graduates to non-graduates has changed from 1 in 3 to 3 in 5. The question which comes to my mind immediately is, what is the definition of a qualified teacher? I do not agree that the qualified teacher is necessarily one armed with a university degree, because some of the worst teachers are university graduates and some of the best are the uncertificated people.
The hallmark of the good teacher and of one who is really qualified in the real sense of the term is a sense of vocation, one who understands children and has enthusiasm for his job. Those qualities are not necessarily obtained in a university, and they are not necessarily the attributes of a university degree. So I deprecate the argument that the teaching profession will be improved simply by ensuring that they are all graduates. We have to take into account numbers as well as quality, and the alternative is either to have those unqualified teachers or to have chaos in the Scottish schools.
Some hon. Members may say there is chaos already and may refer to overcrowded schools. I deplore as much as anyone the overcrowded class because it is impossible for the child to get individual education if there are over 30 in the class. However it is not a new problem. In Glasgow alone, in January, 1939, there were 227 classes with 50 or more pupils on the roll and in 1938 there were more


than double that—over 400 classes in Glasgow itself with over 50 pupils on the roll, so it is not a new problem. Today there are only 55 classes in Glasgow with over 50 pupils.
That brings me to an important point, on which, I hope, my right hon. Friend will give some guidance when he replies. Of those 55 classes, 53 are in primary schools. That putting into the background of the primary school is, to me, a fundamental weakness in our approach to education. I disagree with the attitude that the primary school is not important and that it is the secondary schools that really matter. I take the reverse view. Unless the foundations are laid soundly, one cannot hope to erect a sound building. That is why I should like to see this tendency reversed and priority established for the reduction of classes in primary schools.
The question of priorities arises once more with the building programme. If we build more schools, then inevitably we must build less of something else. The whole problem with which the Government are faced can only be solved by attempting to strike a balance between all the various demands which are being made on our national resources.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I find myself in agreement to a certain extent with the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) about the need for priorities. One of the criticisms which I could make of the Annual Report of the Secretary of State on Scottish education, is that he does not seem to appreciate the need for jettisoning certain aspects of education which may be desirable in normal circumstances but which I believe now to be inessential, and for throwing all his resources into the matters which I regard as being essential. What we are lacking today in Scottish education is a real leadership which is prepared to decide between what is and what is not essential.
Very much the same sort of things are said in the Annual Report this year as were said last year, and there has been no sign of radical and practical proposals that would put right what is admitted on all sides to be wrong. It is true that there has been a decrease in the number of over-sized classes, but in spite of that decrease at least 66,000 children are still

being taught in classes which are too large. That represents about one-tenth of the population and is far too high a proportion. Even then, that calculation is based on the old 1939 code, so that when we come to the 1950 code the proportion of children in over-sized classes will be even greater.
To reduce the number of over-sized classes, two quite simple things are necessary: one is to provide more classrooms, and the other is to supply more teachers. The Secretary of State is aware of this and on page 43 of his Report he has this to say about building:
It is necessary to repeat the warning given in last year's Report that 'it is accommodation which will be the limiting factor of educational development during the coming decade'.
He merely repeats the same warning as be issued last year and seems to think that that in itself is sufficient. Yet on turning overleaf to page 44 of the Report, I find this astonishing statement:
While the H.O.R.S.A. programme has been declining, the programme of work for which the Authorities are responsible has been increasing, but not at the same rate.
If the local authorities have not been building at the same rate, and if accommodation is the controlling factor in the reduction of over-sized classes, why has the H.O.R.S.A. programme been allowed to decline in this way? I should like to have an answer about this from the right hon. Gentleman when he replies. I fully agree that hutted accommodation is not altogether desirable, but if the choice is between ample hutted accommodation and insufficient permanent accommodation, then let us have the hutted accommodation now and get rid of accommodation as a limiting factor in the attempt to reduce the number of overlarge classes.
The other factor which prevents the reduction of the number of over-sized classes is the supply of teachers This problem also is recognised by the right hon. Gentleman when he says at page 50 of his Report that:
The Department have been acutely aware of the serious shortage of teachers.
The Secretary of State is admirable in his analysis of the problem, but he is not quite so good when it comes to taking action. Indeed, the present discontent over salaries is not likely to attract new recruits to the profession. Some general


overall increase will be necessary before ordinary people are likely to be attracted to it. I do not, however, believe that any overall increase by itself will put the matter right, because what is wrong with the profession is that it does not attract men and women of first-rate ability. The reason for that is that there are not what I call "plum" jobs in the teaching profession such as exist in other professions. Take law, for example.

Sir William Darling: Or a Member of Parliament.

Mr. Galbraith: That is a very good example and could be applied equally to what I am saying about the law. Everyone who goes to the Bar does not necessarily become a judge or an eminent K.C., but there is always the possibility of doing so. It is because those "plum" jobs exist in the legal profession that men and women of first-rate ability are attracted to the law. In State education, that opportunity does not exist.

Mr. Ross: Would the hon. Member not consider a directorate of education a "plum" job?

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member has fallen into the very trap which I thought he would be sufficiently skilled to avoid. There are no "plum" jobs in education. The only good jobs in the profession are not in teaching, but in administration, and that is precisely what is wrong. The private schools have been very much wiser in this respect than the State schools. In recent years, we have seen a famous doctor appointed headmaster of Loretto, a great administrator from Germany has gone to Eton, and a solicitor and businessman has been appointed to Rugby. That sort of thing happens in private schools but not in State education. I think that Bernard Shaw is unfortunately right when he says that:
Those who can, do; and those who cannot, teach.
It is all wrong that this disastrous attitude should have arisen. It means that instead of the profession getting really able first-class people, those who enter teaching do so because, like the brother of the hon. Lady the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, they find that there is nowhere else for them to go.

Mr. McNeil: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Member in his very interesting argument, but is he saying that those distinguished people to whom he has referred have gone to those public schools because of the remuneration? Would he also argue, for example, in the case of Rugby, that the headmastership was primarily a teaching post?

Mr. Galbraith: Money is not the only thing, obviously, but there is a considerable financial inducement in becoming the headmaster of a great public school. Other important inducements are those of status, the freedom to run one's own show, and the lack of interference from too many administrative directors of education. I think the hon. Lady who was talking of comprehensive schools might possibly have got a solution there. If we had a really large school, demanding a lot of administrative and teaching ability, I believe we could offer a good salary and position which would be highly regarded throughout the country and would attract people of ability, integrity and character.
I realise that more classrooms and the improvement of the status of teachers cannot be obtained straight away and because of that I wonder whether the Secretary of State is making the best use he can of his existing resources. The impression I get from reading the Report is that there is a great deal of waste of time, a great deal of waste of money and a great deal of waste in manpower. This waste is taking place not only inside the school, but also in the educational facilities which are provided for those who have left school. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the figures of those who attend continuation classes, he will find there were 212,000 students last year. That is a very substantial number, but on page 31 of the Report we find this statement:
The increase — is mainly due to a growing interest in vocational education and in domestic and recreational classes.
I think that continuation classes which are for technical and intellectual subjects are good, but I do not think that at this time of stringency we have any right to spend money on domestic and recreational classes. Old-time dancing, I believe, is one of the most popular in a certain county of which I have some knowledge. As well as spending money


in this way outside the school, there is a great deal of waste of money inside the school and this may well be the falderals of which my hon. Friend was speaking earlier.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Does the hon. Member regard old-time dancing as something to be deprecated? Is it not just as good physical training as boxing?

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Lady has not been appreciating my argument. I consider old-time dancing an excellent thing and boxing an excellent thing, but, as the hon. Member for Fife, West, said, we have to consider priorities, and anything that detracts from teaching in schools today is a waste of money. That is my position and if the hon. Lady does not like it, I cannot help it. I think also that inside the school there is a dissipation of resources. For example, there are lessons in typing instead of what is more wanted, lessons in spelling. On page 20 of the Report we find this interesting statement about the activities of the junior secondary schools:
School visits, lectures and discussions are becoming a common feature.
I think we should ask ourselves if these things should be becoming a common feature. When I see hordes of children going round the House of Commons and notice the bored look on their faces, I cannot help feeling that whatever is the right sort of secondary education for nonacademic pupils, that certainly is not the right sort.
Last year the former Secretary of State, who I am sorry to see, is just leaving the Chamber, made a very interesting statement which I presume is still the opinion of the Department. In the Estimates Debate in Committee, he said:
Some children are not temperamentally inclined to the literary side; they love the healthy, active side of life. It is difficult to force them to be literary when they want to be active."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee; 5th July, 1949, c. 92.]
Of course, it is difficult to force them to be literary when they want to be active, but, on the other hand, they have come to school not to be active, but to be literary. They have come to school not to learn joinery, to visit the House of Commons, to camp with French friends nor to have a man, who I believe is

called "the hut man," who comes every week or so and discusses nature study with them. That is not what they have come to school for—

Mr. Manuel: Mr. Manuel rose—

Mr. Galbraith: I will give way in a minute. They have come to school to learn to read and write. We are not living in a natural society where we have to learn about folk lore or bird lore and all that sort of thing, but in a highly artificial society, and we ought to learn to become literate.

Mr. Manuel: I want the hon. Member to reflect on that sentence in connection with French children. I am quite sure he does not recognise the value which Ayrshire County Council Education Committee and the whole county council put on that experiment and how solidly we are all behind it and of what inestimable value the people of Ayrshire, parents included, consider that experiment.

Mr. Galbraith: I quite understand the value of these things and I am afraid I must be appearing to the Committee as extremely reactionary. Every one of these things is admirable, provided the foundation is good, but we know the foundation is not as good as it ought to be, and therefore I regard these things as a dissipation of our resources which we are wrong to encourage.
What we ought to be doing is to be helping the children to learn the essentials, "the three R's," reading, writing and arithmetic, and a fourth and more difficult "R," the difference between right and wrong. I believe these simple things are the things to which we should give our minds. Arranging visits for Frenchmen and having nature studies are more interesting and imaginative, but I do not believe they are the right things in present circumstances, and if we do not give our children this simple foundation we are failing in our duty to them and also showing ourselves to be unworthy successors to the traditions of stern and austere training which formerly made Scottish education renowned throughout the world.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. Gilzean: I am glad to have the opportunity of taking part in this Debate. The hon.


and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) made a statement about the mass of the people that all they were concerned about was how much they could get out of the community. I do not suppose it ever struck the hon. and gallant Member that it is the people who make that accusation, who get the most out of the community and the people who are accused who get the least out of the community.
The hon. and gallant Member also expressed his regret that people did not know more about Scottish history and he wished they would read more about Scottish history. All my life I have been interested in Scottish history but I find that the less one knows about Scottish history, the happier one is, whereas the more one knows about it, the mere important one is. It is not altogether the beautiful story which was presented to me at school when I was a youngster. Take, for instance, the question of that greatest of all Scots. Bruce, who won that great battle of Bannockburn and then promptly began to divide the country up among his supporters in order to consolidate his own position. They never told me that at school; I found it out afterwards, but that is the plain fact of the matter. So, sometimes the less we know about history the happier we are, but the more we know about it the more knowledgeable we are.
I should like to say a few words about the comprehensive school because that is probably the greatest possible advance that could be made in Scottish education. At present our post-primary education is divided into what we describe as senior and junior education. Because of that we have segregated a section of the community. Let us frankly admit that there are a great many children who could never hope to aspire to the higher education because they have not got a sufficient I.Q. for such an undertaking. But they are good children and would make good citizens. Yet because of the system which we have established of senior and junior secondary schools those children become soured.
The independent schools do not indulge in that segregation. Such a school is an entity. When children go there—and these independent schools have many

children with a low intelligence quotient—they remain there from the infant class until they leave school. They are never sent to any other place, and consequently—and this is an important point—they emerge from their school life with a tradition behind them, a tradition that has meant a great deal to them.
That does not happen in respect of the schools under the control of the education committees. They are divided into senior and junior schools, and that division into senior and junior courses is absolutely necessary. There is no sense in putting boys or girls through a course for which they are not equal, but they should remain in the same schools because they would there get a tradition and a unity that would serve them through life. The advantage of the comprehensive school would lie in the fact that this segregation would no longer exist. Even if those who had been there, went into the world as men and women with very little in the way of academic accomplishment, they would have behind them the tradition of the school to which they belonged, and they would find that of inestimable value in the years to come. For that reason I hope that every effort will be made to establish comprehensive schools at the earliest possible moment.
There is another aspect of the matter which is very important. A great deal of the sourness which one finds in the community, the acridity that is manifest in the community, is due entirely to the inferiority complex which delevops as a result of children being segregated in the way they are at present. As I have already pointed out none of the independent schools ever dreams of doing that sort of thing. It does not matter whether one thinks of Eton, or Harrow, or Glasgow Academy, or any of the independent schools in Edinburgh; they never dream of creating this sense of inferiority which comes from complete segregation from the school to which one originally belonged.
The scholars at those independent schools go through school life as members of their community, and they absorb a tradition which they carry with them wherever they go. I make bold to say that relationships in the community would manifestly improve if only we had here and now, the sense to make up our minds that the comprehensive school is the school of the future, that under no


possible circumstances would we be directed in any other way and that we would refuse to accept anything but the best that the community has to offer.
Education committees are doing a wonderful job. Teaching is improving and in many ways the spirit of the school is also improving. Although teachers may be disgruntled because they are not receiving the remuneration which they think they should get, I have not yet met a single teacher who was prepared to diminish his enthusiasm in any way simply because of the fact that he did not receive the remuneration he wanted. In nine cases out of ten, the teacher is wholeheartedly absorbed in his profession. He may be disgruntled, but, on the other hand he looks at the children and says to himself "What can I make of them?"
They make every effort to fit these children for the battle of life, and we are unquestionably greatly indebted to this body of men and women for the great work which they are doing. But we have to break down in school life this segmentation, this classifying of schools and children. Until we can break that down, education will not be the thing it ought to be. Only by breaking it down can we hope to bring that sweeter community, which I am sure everyone desires, through the medium of education, the only medium that can be used to the end that there shall be a better community than there has hitherto been.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. Grimond: I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Gilzean) has said about the comprehensive school. Two important points were made earlier in this Debate, one by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton), when he impressed upon us that we must have priorities. I think that point was also taken up by an hon. Member on this side of the House—that whatever we want, and we all want a great deal, we have not a bottomless purse and endless personnel and material with which to satisfy those wants.
I agree that oversized classes are extremely difficult to handle, and that as a result of the size of those classes the children in them do not get the full benefit of the education which they receive. We all know of many other matters in schools which could be improved, but I make no

bones about saying that if there is a shortage of materials, and there is, housing comes before schools. That is a fact that we must realise and accept. Further, if there is money to be spent on education I would say that the first priority is the salary of the teacher.
I want to say one word about what has been said about the opportunities facing teachers. I think it is an important and new point. Personally I cannot say that I entirely agree with it. The standing of the teacher in Scotland has traditionally always been very high indeed. No member of the community was held in greater regard by his fellow men than the teacher. That was not because he was paid a big salary. I do not believe that we shall get the sort of people we want merely by offering a few plums. We have to raise the general standard of remuneration until the teacher can regain his self-respect and proper level in the community. Incidentally, I think that in point of fact the headmaster of Rugby probably gave up a very considerable amount of money when he went to Rugby; perhaps he did it for the prestige of that appointment.
I would say a word about the point made, and, if I may say so without impertinence, made courageously, by the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) who argued that we should look at the results of teaching and suggested that they were not as good as they might be. Many people hold that point of view. I have heard it said that the manners, behaviour and morals of today are not as good as they were. But people sometimes forget what in fact did go on as we know it historically. I am certain that today there is nothing like the cruelty which once existed in this country. Consider the sports. We had bear-baiting and such things as that, and there were the conditions which existed in the East End of London in the 18th and 19th centuries. There is nothing like that today, and I think that men and women of today are nicer and kinder to each other than ever before in history.
But that does not mean that everything is perfect. Today people in many ways have a very wrong attitude to the State. The hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire is right in saying that a great many people think that manna


falls from the State as it was once supposed to come down from heaven and some are far keener to take than to give. Here I think education can help to teach people that the State after all is only them. They are the State and the people who make up the community. Everything that comes, comes from their work and it is for them in a democratic country to say what they want and to provide it for themselves.
I believe that the extension of the horizons which is taking place in Scottish education is a very good thing. All the falderals, as they have been called, the correspondence with French children, the encouragement of art, the interest in music, are excellent things, and I would only go so far as this in agreement with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith), that it should not be at the expense of the old tradition of Scottish education. That was I think, rather a hard tradition; which insisted that people really learned what they had come to learn. In many ways it may have been too hard and it has been lightened, brightened and expanded nowadays. It was, however, a good tradition and one which earned respect for Scotsmen and women throughout the world.
A good deal is talked today about the examination system. I consider that for some children examinations are harmful. Examinations hang over them and poison a very important part of their lives. But I know of no alternative. The various alternatives which have been suggested, reports and so on, I do not consider adequate. We have to keep up the standards of real scholarship in education, but if anyone can suggest an alternative it would be a very good thing. In a recent Debate in this House the Minister of Education was defending the rule that a child cannot now take some examinations until a certain age. I mention that only because I do not think his arguments were entirely convincing.
I do not wish to be dogmatic, but it seems to me that in education we must be careful to give the best, the fullest and the happiest education to everyone including the more stupid child; but at the same time we must not hold back the intelligent child. The Minister was arguing that we are not holding them

back. He argued that if the clever child reached the required standard before the age for taking the examination, he need not bother about subjects in which he was not so interested but could go ahead with those in which he was. I do not believe that that is psychologically sound. While a child has an examination in front of him he is like a horse with a race to run; he has to keep in training for it. He cannot start to specialise until he has passed it.
Education is part of life in general. It is not only a preparation for life, it is part of the life of a child and also the educational system forms a large part of the life of the whole community into which it enters in all sorts of ways. In the little communities in my own constituency the school and the teacher are of great importance and I hope that we shall not have it too much centralised. Some side and village schools are vital to the community and we do not want them closed.
It is also of great importance to teach people the sort of things which they will in fact have to do. We do not want to create the feeling that education is a superior thing and that if one is educated one must leave one's home and go off into other professions. We want technical education in agriculture and mining and so on and we want to be taught in the Highlands how to live in the Highlands.
There is an excellent experiment going on in Ross and Cromarty, where for the first time people are teaching the children of crofters how to be better crofters instead of encouraging them to go off to Canada or to Glasgow—unless of course they want to, then they do not discourage them from doing so. But it is important to teach technical education of the sort which will fit into the life of the community from which the children come.
A much greater effort also must be made to work in some things which are unfortunate in my opinion, but are today necessities. I do not like such things as National Service, work in the harvest fields and the potato fields. But we have to have those things and children must be made to feel that they are important. We must make the best and not the worst of them. I hope too that we shall have diversity in education. I hope we shall be able to make use of the new ideas which come from Scots men and women


and from other countries. I think that the hon. Member for Inverness (Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton) is associated with a very important new departure in Scottish education, in a private school. That I am sure with its emphasis on leadership and certain differing traditions should be studied by everybody associated with education in Scotland.
I do not think that anyone has mentioned the subject of universities. It used to be, and still is, one of the greatest glories of Scotland that more people had a chance of getting to a university than in probably any other country in the world. They set an extraordinary example in scholarship and research. The Joint Under-Secretary stressed the need for equality of opportunity in education. It is a field in which we can have some real equality of opportunity and Scotland is a country where that has been the tradition of equality.
I hope that everybody in Scotland will have the highest and widest education that they can have but also with the increasisg numbers attending them I hope that the standards of our universities will not be lowered. It is a tremendous problem to extend the universities to two, three and four times their size and to keep up their life and standards. We have no solution as yet to that problem but it is a matter of vital importance in Scotland.
Nowadays human beings are trying to control their destinies in a way they have never done before. We are not content, for instance, to let the price system regulate things for us and we are not content with a whole lot of things which our forefathers took for granted. We are trying to control them for ourselves and it is a very difficult job. We need far greater ability from those who administrate today than we used to need. I hope that the universities will help and that we shall have more and more people coming forward with arts degrees as well as the technical qualifications to take all sorts of jobs which exist today in the State, not only in the teaching profession but all through the administration of this country—in Government, in local government, in the nationalised industries, and in all things that human beings today are attempting to do for themselves. I hope that they will be people with a real grounding in right and wrong, in

Christianity, and in the traditions of Scotland; people with ability, training and outlook who are prepared to give those things which can help their country.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: We are indebted to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) for a sane and well-thought-out speech to which it was a pleasure to listen. The balance of his whole fundamental outlook made it one of the most interesting contributions we have had.
I particularly liked the way in which he stressed that education is not a preparation for this or for that, but that it is a part of life itself, and should not be divorced from it. If we divorce education from life, then we can write off that education as something which is not serving the purpose for which we have been striving since 1945, or since the Butler Act of 1944. I do not think that it can even be said that education is only a part of life in the sense that there is a part of life devoted to education and another devoted to experience or something else. Education is coterminous with life—the education of the child, the adolescent and the man. Education only ends with life itself.
I think that we are trying to achieve two objects in this era. We are trying to improve the standard of living, to provide better homes, to feed our people better and to give them more of the material comforts of life. But if we concentrate all our efforts on that, and neglect to raise the actual standard of life by improving the spirit of living and cultivating the finer parts of life, then what we are doing is not really worth while. If we do that, we shall cut right across that Christian democracy which we want to build up.
Where the hon. Member for Hillhead (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith) has gone wrong is that he considers education and educational practice to be something static. Life has changed it considerably since the Victorian days to which he looked back with a certain amount of longing and nostalgia. I wish he would get over that. People who talk in that way remind me of a little girl who came late to my school in the Gorbals. I asked why she was late, and she replied that she could not get up. She said she could not get out


of bed. I asked why, and she replied, "Please, sir, I could not get over my grannie." There are an awful lot of people who cannot get over their grandmothers. Life today, with its complexities of atom bombs and jet planes, has changed. The change in the pattern of family life is such that education and educational practice must change.
I looked in the Report to see whether or not the education authorities, the committees, the teachers and the Department of Education are accepting the challenge which legislation has laid down. There is no doubt that legislation has set the pace, and it is up to these people to follow. We have every reason for satisfaction, though certainly not for complacency, in the work which has been done. It is all very well for people to talk about the secondary schools producing leaders. Before the children get to the secondary schools, they must go to the primary schools, and it is there that, to a certain extent, the reading, writing and arithmetic referred to by the hon. Member for Hillhead, are done. Children do not continue to do that until they are 15. There is more to life than experience in reading, writing and arithmetic.

Sir W. Darling: Reading helps towards a full life.

Mr. Ross: One cannot have a full life simply because one is taught automatically to read and write and do arithmetic. Children must be encouraged to develop independence of mind and the ability to think out problems for themselves. I admit that one has to build from the fundamentals. In the primary schools today the teachers are doing that. I am glad to see that the teacher has more freedom to arrange the curriculum in the primary school than ever before. We are not getting type or mass education. More and more, individual aptitude is being brought out.
It is distressing to find that the numbers in the classes are still high. I cannot see how the hon. Member for Hillhead got the figure of 66,000 children. I have made a calculation, from the table in the Report, on the basis of the over-sized classes in 1949. If we take the maxima as the basis, the total comes to about 35,000. To get the figure the hon. Gentleman quoted there would need to

be almost 100 children in every over-sized primary class, about 70 in every oversized class in the first three years of the secondary school, and about 50 to 60 in the classes beyond that.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: Perhaps we could work out the figures afterwards.

Mr. Ross: I spent some time working them out.

Mr. Galbraith: So did I.

Mr. Ross: I assure the hon. Gentleman that my powers of mental arithmetic are quite good. I hope that before long the hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will be able to announce an improvement. I wish to congratulate her on her speech today, and I am pleased that this is a case of one teacher addressing another. I do not know whether we have ever before had a teacher speaking for the Government in Committee on education in Scotland. The hon. Lady certainly brought pride to the Scottish teachers on this side of the Committee by the way in which she put her case today. I should like to see some sign of the maxima being brought down. Fifty is far too high for a primary teacher—

Miss Herbison: In the new code, the number has been reduced to 45 which, we agree, is still too high.

Mr. Ross: It is still too high, but when I recall having 63 children in one slum school in a slum part of Glasgow, I should think that it would be like heaven to be left with only 45 children to look after. I hope that progress will continue to be made.
I should like to know what is holding up the provision of new schools. In Kilmarnock there is an area called Shortlees which will be one of the finest new housing areas in Scotland. It has not yet got a single shop, church, hall or school. I was very pleased when I saw the steel structure of the school being erected, but progress is very slow. I have heard it said that the Departments of Health and Education for Scotland, on more than one occasion, made alterations in the plan of the school after the work had been started. I should like the hon. Lady to make inquiries about that. I ask her to limit, as far as possible, interference and delay.
I realise that the teaching profession is a little upset at the moment. I make no effort here to plead their case. It should be recognised that this profession has become the Cinderella of the professions. Compared with pre-war, the supply of teachers has increased by between 70 per cent. and 80 per cent. In 1933 the output was 1,308, and last year's figure was well over 2,000. Even then, the supply is not adequate. In a time of mass unemployment, when people sought security and continuity of work, we had people entering the teaching profession irrespective of the fact that the wages were not attractive. At the present time, when we have more or less full employment and attractive avenues of employment outside for graduates, we shall not get the people coming in unless we can offer them a fair deal financially.
The reasonable claims of the teachers will have to be met, just as, inevitably, those of the lower-paid industrial workers will have to be met. It is a case either of reducing our standards or facing up to a scarcity of teachers that will mean a definite setting back of all those hopes of reducing the maximum from 45 to a still lower figure. However, I leave that matter to the good sense of the teachers and the authorities concerned in the negotiations.
I want only to say one more word, and that is on secondary schools. I will not say anything about the senior secondary schools, except that I think they get praised enough and they have their traditions. I do not think there is very much wrong with them in respect of the job they are doing, although I do not agree that they should be doing the job they are doing, which is to give purely secondary school education in order to supply the universities of Scotland in meeting other needs. I do not think we are getting the full, rounded education in the senior secondary schools, and that is because of the external examination. It is not the fault of the teachers or of the education authorities, but is the fault of the universities.
The junior secondary schools have no external examinations, which means that they have complete freedom to experiment in the curricula, teaching methods and in everything else. There, to my mind, lies the hope of Scottish education. We have all praised Scottish education in

the past, because of the men it produced, the number of university students and all the rest, but they amounted to a very small part of the total population. It must be remembered that 90 per cent. of our people in Scotland never went to the senior secondary schools or universities, but to the supplementaries or advanced divisions, which are now the senior secondary greatest educational weakness has been, and that is where the great spiritual loss has been, because those people have never been properly educated in the finer things or been given a proper lead so that after leaving school they could take up something which they had discovered in the course of education.
The hon. Member opposite talked a lot of nonsense about people visiting the House of Commons. A class of children could learn more history in five minutes by visiting this place than by sitting in some crowded schoolroom in Glasgow or Ayrshire. Even after they go back, their education will be further advanced by the knowledge that there is such a thing as HANSARD to give them the opportunity of reading the speeches which have been made here. They might get some political education from the visit as well.
I want to finish with a quotation from a deputy-director of education. Despite what the hon. Member for Hillhead said, they are there, first of all, because they have been teachers, and that is recognised. The avenue to the job is through the teaching profession. Really, there is no logic in whatever argument the hon. Gentleman is trying to put up on that point. He spoke to the past glories of teachers in Scotland, but these conditions have always existed. The quotation I am going to make comes from the deputy-director of education for Ross-shire, and I do not wonder that a place of that name has got an intelligent deputy-director of education. When he talked about the junior secondary school, he said:
The non-bookish are the backbone of the nation. They are the people who keep the wheels of everyday life turning in our complicated civilisation. Let the non-bookish get busy doing things for themselves.
That is what I meant—real education enabling these people to do things for themselves, and to learn and work out


things for themselves, which is essential in a democracy. There is a struggle going on today for the mind of man. If our education in Scotland fails, then democracy itself will fail.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Duthie: I cannot attempt to follow the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) in the speech which he has just made, because his great knowledge of the subject must have impressed itself on all hon. Members, and I myself have learned a great deal from what he said. I should like to mention also the speech delivered by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), which raised the Debate to a very high ethical level. I was enormously impressed by what he had to say.
I should like to correct a misapprehension which the Committee may have received from the speech of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton), who appeared to give the impression that there had been discrimination in Scottish education in the past against the children of the poorer classes. That is not true of the North of Scotland; indeed, I think it is true to say that perhaps the greatest intellectual giants who have gone out into the world through the medium of Aberdeen University have been from poorer-class folk.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? What I intended to convey, and what I think I am correct in saying, is that, owing to the lack of financial resources generally, the children of working-class people were unable to benefit from grammar school and university education.

Mr. Duthie: It must not be forgotten that very generous provision has been made, by means of bursaries and so on, by those who benefited from Scottish education to enable children of the poorer classes to attain a higher standard of education, and indeed many hon. Members of the party opposite can bear out that contention.
I join with the hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary when she deplores the wealth of good intellectual material which is lost to our country from the failure to take advantage of higher education. I myself remember that, when I was at Buckie school amongst my fellow pupils,

many first-class brains were lost to higher education through financial considerations, or from the fact that the parents did not see their way to avail themselves of the provisions for higher education. These children were taken away from the school to fill roles in life much inferior to those to which their endowments entitled them.
A great deal has been said concerning the aims and aspirations of Scottish education. All our aspirations, hopes and aims will fail if we cannot provide in our schools teachers of the very finest class—the best type of teacher that our country is capable of producing—not only in quality, but in sufficient numbers to meet our needs. There is no getting away from the fact—and we must face the issue in a businesslike way—that there is very grave disquiet in the teaching profession today.
The raising of the school-leaving age has put more and greater duties upon the teachers. Salaries are not in many instances adequate, because purchasing power has fallen. The salaries offered in the teaching profession must be sufficient to attract to that profession the very best that our universities and training colleges can produce, not only from the point of view of scholastic ability, but also that of character, and I think that the second consideration is of greater importance than the first. I am sure that if that inducement is given, we shall secure that kind of individual teacher whom we need.
Today, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock said, teaching is the Cinderella of the professions. Many potentially fine teachers at the universities today are looking round for other work in which to engage when they have graduated. In many instances, teaching is a last resort when it might conceivably be the first consideration. After all is said and done, our educational system in Scotland is the result of the efforts of the sons and daughters of Scotland, and I believe that the old dominie spirit is still there, that the high sense of calling to the profession is still there. But there is always the recurrent thought that teachers must live, and must be able to bring up their families in comfort.
In my view, we should pay our teachers the highest remuneration we can possibly afford, because education is all in all to us in Scotland. It is not purely an entrée into


the life to be followed after school years; it is an absolutely essential asset to the Scots boys and girls who have to make their way in the world at home, south of the Border, in the Colonies, or elsewhere. Scotland is a poor country, and that is not due to any governmental fault in the past. Our sons and daughters have, to a very large extent, to find their niches outside their own land, and therefore their standard of education must be of the very highest.
There is a somewhat parochial point which I must mention. It is the disability under which our sparsely-populated areas of Scotland suffer, due very largely to the activities of our more populous areas. Banffshire, my native county, which I have the honour to represent in the House, is a case in point. I make no apology for mentioning this matter in this Debate, even though I am in correspondence with the right hon. Gentleman about it. The disability suffered by counties like Banffshire to which I refer is caused through hoarded-out children. Banffshire and counties of that kind have for generations been the Mecca for boarded-out children who come from other parts of the country, particularly from the Glasgow area. At the Rathven parish school in Banffshire which I attended as a boy, there were boarded-out children from Glasgow in all the classes.
Banffshire has opened her arms and her heart to these children throughout the generations. No children could have been more welcome anywhere, but that does not get away from the fact that these children have imposed upon the people of Banffshire a heavy financial burden. I know that is a matter which is going to be adjusted in the future, but it ought to have been adjusted in the past, and it could be adjusted now, because I believe legislation exists to deal with it.
What is the position? There are something like 449 boarded-out children in Banffshire today who come from areas outside the county. We get an educational grant of £6 5s. 3d. for each child, but that leaves a total educational deficit for these children of something like £4,000 which has to be found by the ratepayers of Banff. That is quite inequitable, and is a matter which should be adjusted forthwith. I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will respond to the

appeal recently made to him by the Banffshire education authorities to frame the necessary regulations in order to get clear of that disparity.
I was sorry to read in a copy of a communication sent by the Education Department to the Banffshire education authorities the following passage:
Meantime, I am to point out that the Act does not authorise retrospective effect to he given to such regulation.
I think retrospective effect ought to be given to that matter because it has been a complete negation of equity throughout the years.
There is one other matter that I wish to mention. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to ensure that as soon as possible a uniform administrative scheme in county education is put into effect in Scotland. At the present time a difficulty has arisen in Banffshire which might have been obviated by the appointment of a sub-committee on which teachers would have been represented. I do not wish to mention the difficulty as I hope it can be settled locally. I do think that it would make for smoother working in educational matters in Scotland if we had something in the nature of uniformity in county education administrative schemes.
In closing, let me say this. Our teachers deserve well of us. They have done a magnificent job for Scotland in the past. It is up to this Committee to see that now and in the future they obtain that recognition to which they are rightfully entitled.

6.47 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: When the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Stewart) opened this Debate, I thought he did so in a very commendable way indeed. In one of his initial sentences, he gave us what I thought was a high purpose. He said that our task ought to be to improve continually the quality of education. That is a statement which I am sure will command the support of every hon. Member. But I was sorry that, after setting such a very high standard, he proceeded to depart from it somewhat rapidly, and to create, first of all, a distorted picture with regard to teachers' salaries, and secondly, to make a statement which, so far as I could follow it, did not make contact with the truth at any single point.
In his first statement, he contrasted the wages paid in certain branches of industry with the salaries paid to the teaching profession to the detriment of the teachers. We ought to examine that point because, under the scales offered to teachers today, the Chapter 5 teacher is given a maximum of £840 a year—£16 a week. I represent a division where the railway workers get £4 12s. a week. They have just been offered a further 3s. 6d. a week, which they have accepted, bringing their wages up to EA 15s. 6d. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that that picture which I have given—which is a true one, and which we all know to be true—shows the teacher to be worse off financially than the worker in industry? Engineers in my division are getting between £5 and £6 a week, and the average wage in Scotland today, of engineers, dockers, railwaymen—

Mr. Kirkwood: And miners.

Mr. Rankin: I must correct my hon. Friend, because my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, in replying to a Question of mine, excluded miners from the categories given. They cover all phases of labour in Scotland, except miners. The average wage in Scotland today is £6 10s. a week. The contrast as between the maximum £6 10s. per week wage amongst the vast mass of the workers in my division with the maximum of £16 per week offered to Chapter 5 men under the proposed new salary agreements, presents the true picture, and enables us to see in its true light the somewhat distorted picture that the hon. Member for Fife, East, gave us in the words from the cartoon to which he referred. He also said that salaries were completely frozen. That is not true.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I said, "For the great majority of Scottish teachers," and that is so.

Mr. Rankin: I agree that the hon. Member said so, but that is not true for the great majority of Scottish teachers, because every teacher gets his increment every year and that has been going on all the time. Therefore, to say that salaries are "completely frozen" is not correct. But, if the hon. Member meant that salary scales are completely frozen, then again it is not true. Salary scales are arranged

by negotiation between a body representing the teachers and representatives of the local authorities. Joint agreement is reached. The salary scale was introduced in 1945 by joint agreement, and, with the approval of my right hon. Friend, it was to last for three years until 1948. It was again revised, but not altered, and now is under negotiation in order, by agreement, to establish a new scale. To suggest that either salaries or salary scales were completely frozen is to say something which is scarcely consistent with the truth.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: Mr. Niall Macpherson (Dumfries) rose—

Mr. Rankin: I am very sorry. As the hon. Member knows, I am most generous in giving way, but I am really racing against time. [Laughter.] I should like to deal with the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) if I have time before I sit down, so he had better not laugh too loudly.
After lamenting that we did not seem to be too sympathetic on this side where increased salaries for teachers are concerned, the hon. Member for Fife, East, went on to deal with present economies. I have spent the greater part of my lifetime in teaching, and the greater part of that time has been spent, not in trying to get higher scales but in seeking to restore the cuts on the scales which were imposed by the party opposite.

Sir W. Darling: By a Socialist council.

Mr. Rankin: I shall come to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) later. In August, 1919, we had new scales with a maximum that carried the teachers of Scotland to £360 a year. That seemed "feather-bedding" to us in those days. Glasgow put on £50 more, making £410. In the spring of 1922, the teachers of Glasgow were almost on strike, resisting a cut of 10 per cent., imposed before three years had elapsed, not by Labour members in the Corporation, but by the party represented by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
That cut went on, and in 1931 it was increased to 13¾ per cent. under the Geddes axe. The result was that those scales remained, on paper, for nearly 20 years; and many of the teachers who were in the service in those days—and I was


one of them—never even reached the maximum that was laid down on paper. I do not mind hon. Gentlemen opposite coming forward and saying that they want better pay for teachers. We say so too; but I wish they had given us more proof of their kindly intentions when I was in the teaching profession.
I come back to one point with which the hon. Member for Fife, East, dealt. He said that our purpose ought to be to see that the boy who comes out of a school is a real citizen. I feel quite sure that he hardly meant that. He is a boy, not a little man; and it is not the function of education, at any time, to create little men and little women. It is not its function to create little prigs. Its function is to create people who are fitted—and "fitted" is a most important word—to become real citizens. That is what we must not forget.
I should like to say a word about one remark made by the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire. He said there was a terrible decline in public morality. When he said that, I remembered reading a week ago, in the "Evening Standard" or "The Star"—I forget which—a description of a ball given by the Duke and Duchess of Marlborough to most of the well-to-do people who live round and about London town. I think the cost of a ticket was five guineas. On the morning after the ball, when the Duchess went into the ballroom, she found her magnificent carpet full of holes. Cigarettes had been stamped out on it in very many places; there was broken glass all over the place, and curtains were in disorder. Agreeing, I presume, with the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and Perthshire, she probably decided that there was such a terrible decline in public morality that she was going to have no more five guinea balls for charity. If the hon. and gallant Member is saying we have now a declining morality among the ruling class, we, on this side, will agree with him.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: This class-hatred stuff has nothing to do with what I said. I said the whole country was declining in morals. I did not say any particular class.

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): We cannot have

two hon. Members standing up at the same time.

Mr. Rankin: I am very sorry that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is so perturbed. Before I sit down, I want to pay a very sincere tribute to the work of the Department, which is so excellently represented by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State.

It being Seven o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair, further Proceeding standing postponed until after the consideration of Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business).

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. H. Hynd: I think it will be for the convenience of the House if I reserve what I want to say on this subject until the Motion standing in my name is moved, as I have no desire to hold up the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is what I understood.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. H. Hynd: I beg to move, "That the Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons."
The House will know that petitions have been lodged against this Bill by certain bodies, particularly by the bodies that have circulated statements to hon. Members, namely the Boy Scouts Association, the Girl Guides Association and the Salvation Army. The Scouts and the Guides are bodies incorporated by Royal Charter, and the House may be aware that the Salvation Army are involved because they happen to have Scouts and other youth organisations which are allied to the other bodies. That may explain what has been a little bit of a mystery to certain hon. Members as to where the Salvation Army come in, in regard to camping.
perhaps I might also explain that under Section of the Private Legislation Procedure Act procedure is laid sown Perhaps I might also explain that under Section 9 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, procedure is laid down for referring petitions of that kind to a Joint Committee, as I am now proposing in this Motion. The plea I want to make is on behalf of the bodies which I have mentioned. It is a plea to ventilate what they consider is an injustice inflicted by Cause 26 of this Bill, and that is the only Clause to which objection is taken. Clause 26 proposes to repeal previous legislation and to substitute therefore the legislation proposed in Clause 26 of this new Bill. That, in my submission, is a retrograde step which should not be accepted without further examination by the House.
A very considerable number of people are affected by this proposal. In Scotland there are 59,000 Scouts, 75,000 Guides and 25,000 members of the Salvation Army.

Mr. Manuel: All camping in Edinburgh?

Mr. Hynd: The national headquarters of those bodies are in Edinburgh, and they contend that their work will be seriously hampered if these new powers are taken by the Corporation. What they ask, in brief, is no more than that they should be given the same exemption as that provided at the end of Clause 26 for circus proprietors, roundabout proprietors and travelling showmen. I suggest that is a very modest request. It so happens that I did my own scouting in Scotland. Incidentally, if I mention Scouts, I refer to other bodies as well. It is not only Scottish Scouts who are interested in this matter, because despite the interjection by my hon. Friend as to whether they all camp in Edinburgh, he knows as well as I do that there are many Scouts who go to Edinburgh from all parts of the world, and if they want to camp in that district they also will be affected by this proposed new legislation. So they, too, are affected by this Bill.
I would remark, in passing, that it is a singularly unfortunate time at which to clamp down any new restrictions, when we are trying to attract people from all over the world to this country. Furthermore, there are at least three other Orders waiting for a decision on this Order; those Orders relate to Kirkcaldy, Falkirk

and Airdrie. They are affected by similar provisions, and this case is regarded as a test case for those other Orders. That adds to the importance which we ought to attach to our decision this evening.
It is only by watching these incursions that we can prevent their extension to 1346
other Orders. We have long learned in this House that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and that is the principle which I am exercising at the moment. I regret, as a Scot, to say that there is more freedom for the people of whom I am speaking in England than in Scotland. Under the English legislation at the moment the Boy Scouts' Association has a general certificate of exemption under Section 269 of the Public Health Act, 1936, so that they do not have to apply for camping permission as they otherwise would have to do under that Act. Under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, there is special exemption under what is called the Town and Country Planning (General Development) Order, 1948, and also under the Town and Country Planning (Development Charge Exemptions) Regulations, 1948, which briefly say that it is unnecessary to get the consent of the planning authority before camping takes place and that any landowner who permits camping on his land will not thereby render himself liable for a development charge.
In Scotland, on the other hand, it has been the custom to give this exemption in the form of a special exemption under Provisional Order Bills. We have, for example, the list which has been circulated in the statement by the Boy Scouts Association—a list of about a dozen local authorities in Scotland who have put through Orders ranging from 1933 to 1946, and in all of those Orders there is this exemption which is being sought under the Edinburgh Bill. I think it is fair to say that the recognition of those movements as worthy of special exemption has been well established by all that legislation.
The Edinburgh Corporation have at the moment all the necessary powers under Section 161 of the Edinburgh Corporation Order, 1933. Under that Order there is special exemption for duly constituted religious or charitable societies or bodies to the main objects of which the provision, ownership or use of tents, vans, sheds, etc., is merely subsidiary, or any


association incorporated by Royal Charter or any organisation constituted by any such mentioned association in pursuance of their Charter. In other words, the bodies of which I have spoken are specially exempted under the Edinburgh Corporation Order, 1933, and it is difficult to understand why since that time the Corporation have felt it necessary to repeal that and to seek to include those bodies under the Bill that is now before the House.
In support of their case the Corporation have circulated a statement which hon. Members will have in their hands, and I should like to call attention to one or two of the remarks in that statement. Following what I have said, in the first place they say at the top of page 2 that they are merely re-enacting some of their previous powers. That, I suggest, is not the case, because they are more than reenacting the powers they possess at the present time; they are seeking fresh powers and, particularly, bringing in those bodies which were previously exempted. If, as they say, re-enactment of the existing powers is proposed merely for convenience, then it is very difficult to understand why, in re-enacting those powers, they should not have included at the same time the exemptions which were previously given.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to mislead the House. At the top of page 2 it is specifically stated that the only additional powers proposed "are in respect of"—and then it gives a list.

Mr. Hynd: I fully accept that. I was referring to the previous words, and I would point out that under the present powers there is provision for imposing any conditions the Corporation want.
A point which has been worrying my hon. Friends is why this procedure should be sought in connection with the Bill? Although it has been rarely used, it is a constitutional right that when an important principle is at stake the Joint Committee procedure should be sought, and that is why I am seeking the use of the procedure now. In the statement they say that they see no justification for departing from the normal practice. I would fully accept that it would only be justified if there is departure from what is known as the common form Clause, and I think it is

quite clear that that is what is happening in this case.
I do not think there should be an objection to the use of the special procedure in this case. The criticism offered here is that the procedure has not been used for a considerable number of years. I would say that that is a very good reason why we should use it on a special occasion, when it is necessary. The fact that the procedure has not been used over that very long period shows that there is no question of its being abused. It is only used, and I would only use it, in a very special matter of principle. as in this case.
If there is any suggestion that reflection is intended on the Commissioners, who included two hon. Members of this House, I hope that suggestion will he removed from the minds of all hon. Members. After all, even High Court judges have their decisions upset sometimes by a court of appeal or by another place. The fact that something may be looked at again and afresh does not reflect in any way on what we might call the lower court. Some hon. Members may say, too, as the statement says, that no important question of policy or principle arises. I would dispute that. I say that there is a very important question of principle here. In my submission the issue at stake is to secure freedom from hampering and vexatious restrictions, and that is very important indeed.
The statement goes on to say that neither in the Act nor Order nor any by-law are the Corporation's powers fettered by exemptions in favour of the interests represented by the petitioners. I think there must be a mistake, because that is obviously a mis-statement, as will he seen from Section 161 of the Edinburgh Corporation Order, 1933, from which I have quoted. That Order shows that it is only to the limited by-law making powers that exemption does not apply.
There is another point of difficulty. The statement declares that it is most undesirable that there should be special exemptions, and this point was urged very strongly indeed by counsel before the Commissioners in Edinburgh. The strange thing is that, having said that it is most undesirable that there should be special exemptions, the fact then remains that the Bill gives special exemptions to circus


proprietors, roundabout proprietors and showmen, and the only explanation is that there must be a criticism by the Corporation of the Commissioners for having given such a decision.

Mrs. Jean Mann: I think my hon. Friend is losing sight of the fact that, under the Burgh Police Act, the local authorities already have power to deal with the classes they have specially exempted, whereas they have not the power to deal with the classes which they wish to include.

Mr. Hynd: Not at all. Whatever powers they may or may not have, all I am saying is that under this Bill they are trying to alter the present procedure and to seek more powers than they possess now. That is surely the point at issue, and it is a very simple point. If the Corporation are criticising the Commissioners for having given those special exemptions then I can understand it; but it is no good their saying in the statement, that it is most undesirable that there should be special exemptions when, indeed, special exemptions are given for the showmen. I am not objecting for one moment to the fact that special exemptions have been given to showmen; there may be a perfectly good case for that. All I am suggesting is that the Scouts and the others allied with them have at least as good a case for a similar exemption.
The statement also says that no difficulty or complaint has been made as regards the operation of the existing bylaws. I put that forward as a very good argument for my case. The fact that, under the present procedure, there has been no complaint or difficulty since 1933 is, I suggest, the best argument for preserving the present arrangements.
In the same connection the statement says that it is not right that members of particular organisations should be at liberty to disregard proper standards laid down. Is it suggested for a moment that Scouts or Guides have disregarded proper standards of camping? As far as I know, there has been no such complaint; it has never been suggested that they have abused the privilege they have had. Indeed, those organisations take very great pride in the maintenance of very high standards of discipline, and camping is

always done under the proper supervision of officers. Indeed, the whole case on that point is demolished by the Medical Officer of Health for Edinburgh who, before the Commissioners, was asked whether there had been any lack of standards by the Scouts, and who said:
These are bodies I would use as my guinea pigs to keep my higher standards.

Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Member has mentioned a point which puzzles me. I have been under the impression that Scouts behave themselves and observe these standards, but I gather now that the Scouts want permission not to observe good standards; they are not prepared to observe standards laid down by the local authorities. If they intend to observe good standards and live within the conditions of good living, I cannot see how the conditions imposed by the Edinburgh Corporation affect them at all. In raising this as a matter of principle, it seems to me that the hon. Gentleman wants Scouts to have the liberty to do as they like, although they have no intention of doing anything different from what they would have to do under the Act.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Before my hon. Friend replies, may I ask whether it is not a reflection on the discipline of the Salvation Army?

Mr. Hynd: I do not think that last interjection was intended seriously. As to the interjection by my right hon. Friend, I would accept it at once as a very good debating society point, but I think he knows as well as I do that the fact that they do not want special by-laws and regulations and red tape applied to them does not in any degree mean that they would fail to maintain the present standards. The fact is that, having been recognised as maintaining exemplary camping discipline over all these years, I would go as far as to say that they resent special laws, rules and regulations being applied to them as something new.
Some hon. Members may make the point that the Clause in the Bill has already been enacted in the Dundee Order. I should like to deal with that for just a moment. The fact is, as I understand it, that when the Dundee Order was tabled it included a Clause in the form of the 1933 Edinburgh Order. In other words, it exempted Scouts, and so on. Then at


a later stage, without any notification to the organisations concerned, a new Clause was introduced behind their backs, without their knowledge, without their having any opportunity at all of objecting. Therefore there is anything but a valid precedent in that for this particular case. I notice that the Edinburgh Corporation carefully omit to put that forward in their statement, but I have heard it urged, and that is why I think it better to deal with it at this stage. At the inquiry before the Commissioners, counsel for the promoters said:
It is perfectly true, as my friends say, that they were not given an adequate opportunity of representing against the powers sought, and, therefore, I cannot say that they acquiesced in the Clause of the Dundee Act.
So I hope that that will prevent any hon. Member trying to use the Dundee case as a precedent.
It is obviously undesirable to have varying by-laws in different parts of the country for voluntary bodies like the Scouts and the Guides. They are run by people who are busy people, and if they are to have to study separate by-laws in every district—well, they are going to have to occupy a great deal of time in administrative detail. However, it is not only for reasons of administrative inconvenience that this is objected to. There is really a practical difficulty to which I should like to draw the attention of the House, and it is that landowners who, quite generously on the whole, allow Scouts and Guides to camp on their land are going to be very hesitant in future if they know that camping is controlled by complicated rules and regulations, for they will fear they may be rendering themselves liable to penalties if they give the permission as generously as they have done.

Sir William Darling: Would the hon. Member regard as complicated regulations, those dealing with sanitary arrangements, water supplies, precautions against fire, and good and orderly conduct in camp? Are they not good and proper?

Mr. Hynd: Those are quite proper as headings, but we know from our experience that once a local authority starts framing by-laws—and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have supported me in this—the by-laws

are liable to be very complicated indeed. A town clerk is not going to be satisfied with saying there should be proper precautions taken against fire. That heading would involve, perhaps, a dozen or 20 paragraphs in a by-law about the prevention of fire.
I want to refer again, in passing, to the question of the exemption of showmen, because I emphasise that I do not want to say or do anything that will prevent the showmen from getting their exemption; but it is significant that the Corporation were so insistent at the hearing before the Commissioners that there should not be a special exemption for showmen, and that, nevertheless, exemption was given. I suggest that that throws an entirely new light on the application of the Scouts and Guides, and helps to justify fresh examination of the matter by the Joint Committee.
Now I think I have said enough to set out the general case, but I insist that this is more than just a question of whether or not Scouts and Guides are going to be brought under the same heading as other campers. Scouting and Guiding are conducted in this country as an adventure. The whole idea is to give Scouts and Guides scope for expending their surplus energy and using their imagination. Can we imagine Scouts and Guides setting out in future with the same spirit of adventure if they are to go to municipal camping grounds, and know, before they set out, that they will have to study long regulations of a sanitary inspector or a medical officer of health?
If there has been any abuse, if there has been anything wrong under the present regulations, let Edinburgh Corporation say so. I hope someone will say whether there has been. I submit, however, that no evidence at all along those lines has been adduced, and that, therefore, they have no right to clamp these new shackles on the Scouts. Unless this Motion is passed tonight, the Bill will go through formally, the old freedom will be taken away, and new regulations will be imposed, and will cause this hardship—as I think it will be—which these organisations fear. I am not now asking the House to make up its mind at the moment on the regulations, but I think there is a clear case for the matter to be submitted to a Joint Committee of both


Houses as laid down in the statutory procedure.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Heathcoat Amory: I beg to second the Motion.
I want briefly to support the case that has been very clearly put by the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) because I have a very high regard, as I am sure all the House has, for the work of the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides Associations and of the Salvation Army. I feel rather as Daniel must have felt in the lions' den, because I realise that the clans have risen.

Mr. Rankin: Do not talk too long.

Mr. Amory: I have been enumerating the drops of Scottish blood that flow in my veins, and I think I just qualify. I believe I have a minimum of 12½ per cent. and a possible maximum of 25 per cent.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Who is the hon. Gentleman's father?

Mr. Amory: Some of us did think of sending out a three-line Whip on this matter—English Members are concerned about it—but we decided not to do so, as we did not want to convey the impression that we were trying to "gang up" against our Scottish friends. However, I should like to make a few general remarks. The Scout and Guide movement, as I understand it, are asking that they may get under this Order reasonably the same position as is already given them under the Public Health Act, 1933, and under 17 Scottish Orders and, I think, 12 English Local Acts. They are asking for exemption.
Why do they feel that it is sufficiently important to bring up in this way? First of all, they are convinced from past experience that it will, to some extent—I do not want to overstress it—handicap them in the work they are doing. Camping in the Scout and Guide movement occupies a very high place indeed; and, indeed, it is one of their main methods of teaching self-reliance, resource, and the principles of good health. There is no dispute anywhere, I think, that they do maintain very high standards indeed. Camping in the Scout and Guide movement is quite a different thing from going out to camp on ordinary camping fields.

The Scouts camp in small numbers, and it is essentially a part of their practice that a patrol when it goes out, should be able to choose its own camping site—getting permission, of course to use it—and not simply go to a pre-arranged place with everything laid on.
Scouts at camp make their own arrangements, including those for sanitation, precautions against fire, and so on. I think the answer to the right hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) and to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) is just that—that the type of Scout camping is different. There is no possible question that the Scout movement wants freedom not to have lower standards than would be insisted upon by a local authority. But the Scouts' standards are different; and it may be that officers of local authorities who have not had experience of the movement may insist on restrictions which would interfere very greatly with the principles of training in the movement.
The only other point I want to make is the importance that is attached to this by these Associations. Primarily Scottish Scouts are involved. There are 134,000 members of the Scout and Guide movement in Scotland, but periodically other Scouts, moved by a spirit of adventure and romance, cross the Border into Scotland. I may want to do so myself one day. When they do that, they want to be able to camp under the same conditions as they can elsewhere.

Sir W. Darling: Do they not want sanitary camps?

Mr. Amory: From this point of view, the question of exemption is important, and if this exemption which has been given in all these other cases, and is given in almost every case that arises nowadays, is denied to these associations, it will be, in their opinion, a dangerous precedent, and will make it very difficult for them in the future. It may be said that it really has not any importance; that anybody will allow Scouts to camp on their ground, in view of their known high standards. But it is found in practice that where there are restrictive by-laws, owners are just a little bit scared because they feel that by allowing the Scouts to go there they may involve themselves in some difficulty.

7.31 p.m.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): I intervene at this stage in the hope that by my intervention the time of the House on this matter may be shortened. In rising to offer these observations I want to make it clear that I am trying to approach the problem from a purely neutral attitude. First, I think I ought to disclose an interest, because I happen to represent one of the Edinburgh constituencies.
There seems to me to be a constitutional question involved here, a question of the procedure to be followed by this House, and it is from that point of view that I wish to address my remarks. Hon. Members will know that under this procedure—which I think everyone will agree is a procedure that has been of great value to us in Scotland, and which we wish to encourage, and we do not wish to send from this House any feeling that it will not serve its purpose, or that it might become too expensive or cumbersome—if the Chairman of the Committee of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means of this House report that the Provisional Order which has been put forward to the Secretary of State may proceed upon due proof to the satisfaction of the examiner, in compliance with general orders for regulation of proceedings made by the Chairmen and the Secretary of State jointly, the Secretary of State may authorise an inquiry to be held.
Now there are great virtues in that inquiry. It is always held in Scotland; it is held locally and the Commissioners are drawn from this House and from the other place. Therefore, we have the Parliamentary connection maintained. Full evidence is adduced before the inquiry; counsel are briefed in the normal way for all parties, and a full legal argument takes place. Thereafter, the Commissioners recommead to the Secretary of State in the form of a report indicating that the Order should be passed, or should be rejected, or should be passed with modifications. If the Order is issued by the Secretary of State—as it has been in this case, because it has been confirmed by my right hon. Friend—it is then submitted to Parliament in the form of a Confirmation Bill, which is deemed to be a public Act.
My hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) is right in saying that under Section 9 of the 1936 Act, which governs this procedure, there is power to refer the matter to a Joint Committee of both Houses to go into the whole question again. That would involve once again the leading of witnesses, the employment of counsel and a rehearsal of the arguments that were previously adduced. It is quite competent, of course, for my hon. Friend to bring forward this Motion, but I think that, from the point of view of the procedure of the House, the House would be slow to give effect to any such Motion unless they were satisfied, prima facie, on the case presented that some large and important constitutional issue was raised, or that some material miscarriage of justice had been effected; and that they would not sanction the repetition of the previous procedure and a rehearing of the case unless conditions such as I have indicated were satisfied. It is for the House to decide whether, on the facts put forward by the mover and seconder of this Motion, these conditions have been satisfied.
I do not want to go into the merits of the case, but I do want to make two observations because I think, possibly unwittingly, my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington has rather misled the House with regard to the existing provisions and the existing exemptions in rela-to these organisations. Let me say parenthetically, that no one, whether they have a strong argument on the merits or a strong line on the constitutional question or the procedural question, depreciates the great work that these organisations carry on, and I do not think that any speech made on either side of the House should be construed, here or elsewhere, as in any way minimising the good work of these organisations.
My hon. Friend did indicate that in the Edinburgh Corporation Order (Confirmation) Act, 1933, exemption from the by-laws had been granted to these organisations. Well, if he looks again at Section 161 of that Act he will see that it is in two parts, subsection (1) and sub- section (2). Subsection (1) deals with the obtaining of consent by any person before he either lets or uses land within the city for occupation by any tent, van, etc., and also similar consent to place


or keep on any land situate within the city any such tent, van, shed or similar structure.
It is from the necessity of obtaining such consent that these organisations have been excluded in the 1933 Act. They are not in any way exempted from the provisions of subsection (2), which extends Section 73 of the Public Health ((Scotland) Act, 1897 to enable the local authority to make by-laws in relation to the number of tents vans, sheds or similar structures. Accordingly, it would be wrong to suggest that these organisations have been excluded from the by-law making power under the 1933 Act. They have only been excluded from the necessity to obtain the consent of the Corporation to have tents, etc., within the city limits.

Mr. H. Hynd: I think the Lord Advocate will agree that subsection (4) which refers to Section 73 of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, gives power to make by-laws with respect to the number of tents, vans, etc., and the number to be permitted on any land or area to be allotted to such tents, etc. There is nothing about the other by-laws for sanitation, and all the other things to which reference has been made. It is a very partial power.

The Lord Advocate: I was not trying to enter into the merits of the case. I was merely pointing out that the exemption in Section 161 of the 1933 Act related not to exemption from by-laws but to exemption from obtaining consent from the corporation to structures of this nature within the city limits.
My second point—and with this I hope to conclude—is that, without in any way entering into the merits of this dispute, there is a principle which has been enunciated which I, as a Law Officer of the Crown, cannot hope to subscribe to; and that is that, merely because organisations which are well-organised, well-disciplined and well-controlled operate within the city it is not necessary to bring them within the jurisdiction of the by-laws.
If we were to carry that to its logical conclusion it would be equally right for various ecclesiastical bodies to come to this House and say to the Government of the day: "We have a well-disciplined

congregation; we teach them not to commit sin; we teach them not to commit offences. Therefore they should be excluded from the operation of all your Criminal Justice Acts." It seems to me to be exactly the same reasoning, and if the House were to approve of this Motion, I trust that they would not approve it for a reason such as that.
I think that it is a matter for the House, and I trust that, with these observations, the issue will become clearer. As I see it, the real issue is whether, on the facts presented by the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, the House should approve of sending this case to a Joint Committee of both Houses, going through the whole procedure again, incurring expense and delay, merely because unsuccessful objectors have thought fit to come here and table such a Motion.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. James Stuart: I only wish to say that certainly Scottish Members present will agree with the views expressed by the Lord Advocate. This Private Bill procedure. which has operated for the last 50 years, is well-liked in Scotland, and it suits our needs. I believe that I am correct in saying that Scottish Members in general support it. I hope, therefore, that nothing will be done to interfere with it. I must also add that we have no desire to interfere with the right of appeal to a Joint Committee of both houses. The hon. Members who moved and seconded this Motion are perfectly justified in doing so.
What we have to consider is whether the points that they have brought before the House really necessitate this additional procedure and this expense. I hope that they will agree, having heard the Lord Advocate, that it is not necessary to persist in their objection. As I have said, this procedure has operated well, and, as we have been told and as we know, the case of the Boy Scouts' Association and the Salvation Army was heard before the Commissions in Edinburgh for four days. Their case was presented, the Commissioners reported in favour of the Edinburgh Corporation's Bill, and, therefore, under this procedure, we hope that the views and decisions of our Commissioners will be supported by this House.
We on this side naturally agree with the views that have been expressed, in that


we bear no ill-will to such admirable organisations as the Boy Scouts, the Girl Guides or the Salvation Army. I am sure that in practice they will find that they will not suffer. Nobody, obviously not the Edinburgh Corporation or anyone else, wishes to interfere with any organisation which conducts its affairs in a proper and orderly manner. I am quite satisfied that they will not suffer, and I hope that, in the circumstances, the mover and seconder of this Motion will agree to its withdrawal.

7.43 p.m.

Mr. H. Hynd: With the leave of the House, may I say that I very much regret that this matter has been discussed from the point of view of the Motion having been an attack on the principle of Scottish private legislation procedure? Nothing was further from the mind of any one who wanted to be associated with this Motion. The Lord Advocate dealt almost exclusively with that, and said nothing, so far as I could gather, about the merits of the case. It is because the merits of the case ought to be looked at again by another body, as provided for by legislation, that I moved the Motion.
It has been indicated, and I think that both Front Benches agree, that this procedure is perfectly in order, and every one agrees that it should only be resorted to where there is an important principle at stake. The vital question has not been answered. That is: why does the Edinburgh Corporation want to take away the exemption that was previously given? That is the vital question which no one has faced up to. That is the question, I suggest, which ought to be further looked at by the Joint Committee, which is the only procedure open to us, and that is why I regret very much that I cannot see my way to withdraw the Motion.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Mathers: Leaving the arguments that have been made from the two Front Benches to stand on what I would say were procedural questions, I wish only to say a brief word about the merits of the case. It seems to me that there is only one valid point to answer in the case which was put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Accring-

ton (Mr. H. Hynd). The question is a simple one and the answer is equally simple. The question is: Why should the complaining bodies not have the same privileges as are accorded to the members of the Showmen's Guild who camp out in the course of their professional work? The answer, I am advised, is that these showmen are a very carefully organised body of people whose controlling authority insists on very high standards being maintained and they therefore meet the conditions that would be laid down by the by-laws.
I am quite sure that so far as the complainants are concerned, none would wish to hamper them in their work. But I believe that they are entitled to stand up to the standards laid down by the Corporation. I think that I can sum up my attitude to this matter by saying that I am not prepared to encourage non-compliance with normal Scottish procedure in this matter by re-opening a case which has already received full consideration. I am not prepared to pass a vote of lack of confidence in the Commissioners who examined the Provisional Order and the objections to it. I am not prepared to express a lack of confidence in the Edinburgh Corporation to draft satisfactory by-laws nor in the ability of those who will have to administer these by-laws once they are drawn up.
I think the case that has been put forward is one that never should have been brought here, and I hope that the House will come to a decision to reject this Motion, and allow us to get on with the business that should not have been interrupted for a purpose of this kind.

Question put, and negatived.

Bill to be considered Tomorrow.

SUPPLY

Again considered in Committee.

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Question again proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £56,431,894, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sums necessary to defray the charges for the following services connected with education in Scotland for the year ending on the 31st March, 1951

EDUCATION, SCOTLAND

7.49 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: I want to add a very sincere compliment to the Department for the encouragement and help which they have given to education in the City of Glasgow. I know that what I am saying has the backing of everyone in Glasgow who is interested in education, and they assure me that, so far as the Department of my right hon. Friend is concerned, Glasgow has received nothing but encouragement and help on every possible occasion. That does not mean that the education authority in Glasgow has not got its difficulties; it has. The difficulties that face it are created by what I might call "inter-departmental difficulties" within the corporation, and over this the Scottish Education Department has no control. I shall not venture to go beyond that, otherwise I might be getting into difficult waters.
I want to raise an issue which has not been touched on during this Debate. The hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson Stewart), as I have already said, gave a good send off to the Debate by stating that our purpose is to improve the quality of education. I wish to pose the question, how far does "tattie howking" or "potato lifting," as they call it in England, improve the quality of education. I want to take as an example the city of Glasgow. There are something like 180,000 boys and girls on the school roll in Glasgow, and between 6,000 to 6,500 teachers on the staff of the education authority. Last year, 3,300 pupils out of this total went to lift potatoes. They were accompanied by nearly 300 teachers. I ask the Committee to note that, when boys and girls go to this work, it is laid down that there must be one teacher for every 10 pupils, whereas in the clasroom the code lays down only one teacher for every 40 pupils.
I admit that the comparison between the schoolroom and lifting potatoes is not a fair one. Nevertheless, it is rather a sad fact that there should be this difference in treatment. People lament the effect of this on the education of the 3,000 boys and girls who are leaving the schoolroom, but little regard is paid to the more important effect it has on the remaining 177,000, which is where the damage is being done. We need 300

teachers in Glasgow today, but we are withdrawing 300 teachers from our effective teaching force when these boys and girls do potato lifting. It means that classes have to be heavily increased for other teachers. Work is disorganised, and the boys and girls who remain are very seriously and deleteriously affected.
I am not condemning the immediate necessity of carrying on the job of potato lifting, but what is worrying me is the fact that I am led to believe that the Department is not visualising this as a temporary measure but is looking ahead for years and years, which means that it may become a permanent feature of the educational life of the nation. If that is the case, then we are laying it down that boys and girls of 13 and 14 are a necessity to the economic functioning of our country. If that is so, I condemn it here tonight. I want my right hon. Friend to say that I am wrong, that we are not going to go back to the days when child labour was regarded as an essential part of our economic set-up.
I want to hear that my information is wrong, and that the Department are not making plans for this to become a permanent feature in our educational life. If I hear that, I shall be able to say that this Debate has finished on the note that was struck at the commencement. that our main purpose is to improve the quality of education and nothing, not even the need for potatoes, is to hinder or to detract from a continual improvement in the quality of Scottish education.

7.57 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I know that the hon Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) will not expect me to follow what he has said, because I understood that we were debating education. As far as I followed him, he did not touch on education throughout his remarks, but used a lot of time in congratulating his right hon. Friend on the magnificent job he has done, and trying to stir up a little class hatred in the intervals.

Mr. Rankin: Mr. Rankin rose—

Sir T. Moore: I am not going to give way because my time is very short.

Mr. Rankin: The hon. and gallant Member did not hear the speech to which he is referring.

Sir T. Moore: I am referring to the speech to which I have just been listening, the speech of the hon. Member for Tradeston in which he referred, in one phrase only, to education; that was when he said that we want it to be the best in the world.

Mr. Mathers: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will give way to me in order to explain to him that my hon. Friend was interrupted during his speech by other Business.

Sir T. Moore: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was not in the House earlier. I would point out that I have been sitting here since 2.30 p.m. and heard what the hon. Member had to say. I really do not think that much of it had to do with education.
I am glad that the Joint Under-Secretary is back in her place, because I want to tell her that I thought she made her speech with great sincerity and charm, which we are always accustomed to expect from her, although she did seem to be a little on the defensive. I am wondering what it was she was defending; whether it was Scottish education as at present administered. When I look at this Report, which like every other Member I have read, I must say that purely from the booksellers' point of view it is well and attractively produced. It is couched in graceful and flowing language, and in every way it is a credit to the editor responsible for producing it. But what I cannot understand and reconcile with what is given in this Report is what is said in this document I read every month, the "Scottish Schoolmaster." If this document is consulted for the month of April, it will be seen that according to it we have reached the nadir of education in Scotland. I ask, therefore, whether I am wrong in my reading, of the Report. Is it just purely persuasive platitudes and wishful thinking? It says:
Latin is holding its own. Greek is making progress. Biology is attracting attention.
while all the time this "threatened collapse" of Scottish education—that is what they call it—is glossed over or ignored.
In Scotland, we have a reputation for learning and a great tradition for scholarship. Indeed, in many counties, particularly in Ayrshire, that tradition still persists because of the line of very distin-

guished directors of education which we have had in Ayrshire and, if I may say so, good education committees. During that time we had students coming from many odd and comparatively unknown countries to participate in this great heritage. It is also true to say that this scholarship did not apply alone to the universities but to the academies and senior secondary schools as well.
Why was that? My hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith) suggested it was because our education was based upon the "three R's." No doubt there is a certain amount of truth in that, but at the same time there was one remarkable addition, in that our Scottish educational system relied on teaching children to think. They were taught self-reliance, honour, and honesty in dealing with others. It is those qualities which have made Scotsmen welcome wherever they go in the world.
Has any change come over our educational system today? I believe there is a change. Does Scotland still hold the same reputation for scholarship? Why is the devoted band of teachers, to whom many compliments have been paid today, no longer showing their former enthusiasm for the profession, and why is it that we cannot attract enough men and women of character, ability and imagination to the profession? I will try to give the answer.
It is partly due to the newspapers, although possibly they are not aware of the fact and do not mean it. They print the news in black headlines, which make it unnecessary for the lazy to read any further. Then I think it is partly the fault of the war, which has rendered the elderly generation too tired to inspire the younger with the joy and use of real knowledge. It is possibly the result of the welfare State, which has made real education and knowledge unwanted to short-sighted youth, in that they can earn big money without even learning or without even endeavouring to acquire knowledge. Simply carrying a parcel or sweeping a crossing, can get them bigger wages than educated men receive.
But I think the real trouble is, as has been mentioned already, that we are either driving away from, or not attracting to, the teaching profession the men and women who have a definite urge to teach, who have a definite calling to impart knowledge and who have a definite sense


of fulfilment in their work. That, of course, brings me to the question of salaries. I am afraid I must charge the hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary of State with having said "nonsense" when I mentioned this question before and stated that the salaries were totally inadequate. I do not think in her position of responsibility today that she would repeat that word tonight.
It may be argued that, since teaching is like preaching, a calling, and, therefore, inspired and a matter of the spirit that money should not play any part in our attitude towards it. Teachers are like preachers, they are men and women and they are likely to fall in love, to be wishful of marriage, and to be hopeful of children. On the present scale of salaries, not enjoyed but endured by the teachers, all hope of that future is taken from them. I was told in the last inquiries that I made that a secondary school male teacher, who is an honours graduate, after 25 years' service, can earn a maximum salary of £625 per year. I was also informed that a woman with the same honours qualification can earn £610 a year in the same period. If I am wrong in those figures the Secretary of State will correct me when he winds up tonight, but that was the last information I was given.
As some of the Committee know, that is a little more but not much more than we pay to an under-educated shorthand typist, and a little bit more than we pay to a completely uneducated labourer. That is tragic for all of us and for our people. There are, of course, other problems such as the lack of adequate school buildings and text books, but the main problem is the lack of trained teachers. It is quite lamentable, as is noted by the Report, that some 700 to 900 of our teachers today are non-graduates. It is stated in the "Scottish Schoolmaster" that some of the teachers have not even the education of the people they themselves are teaching.

Mr. McNeil: Mr. McNeil indicated dissent.

Sir T. Moore: This book is published by the Scottish Schoolmasters Association, and presumably it has some status in the scholastic world. How can education flourish under such conditions either in Scotland or anywhere else? What can we do about it? I have got the

facts as I extracted them from authorities who know far more about education in Scotland than I do, and I go, as is my custom, to the fountain head to get my facts.

Mr. McNeil: I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not base his speech upon that publication, when there are official publications available. The figures of the salary scales which he quoted are wrong, and he can get the correct information from the Vote Office.

Sir T. Moore: I am very glad to hear it, and I did suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he would correct me if I were wrong, but in the last inquiries that I made on this subject those were the figures that were given to me.
I come back to my main remarks. What can we do about them and how can we improve Scottish education and raise it to the standard we all want it to reach? Many of us hoped, and most of us thought, that when the Butler Bill became an Act of Parliament the problem of education in this country would be solved. Yet I am told—and again I quote from some of the documents which are not held in high regard by the right hon. Gentleman—that the Butler Act is practically a dead letter. We seem to have acted about education as we acted about the National Health Service and the whole policy of the welfare State, to which we have all contributed, and which we have all helped to create. We have gone too fast and too far, without laying the solid foundations upon which any permanent system should be based.
I do not know whether it is possible to go back or whether it is too late. I do not think it is. I think there are certain policies we should still adopt, and if I were asked my opinion, which is extremely unlikely, I would make these suggestions. First of all, I would say do not press the school-leaving age too rigidly, since obviously we are not ready yet to absorb the 300,000 children who come under that scheme. Instead of taking our great hotels, blocks of flats and private houses in order to house redundant and unnecessary Ministries, why can we not take them for our schools, technical colleges and junior colleges? Why can we not allocate more paper for text books instead of for the trashy novels on which so much paper is wasted at the present time?
Let us, above all, make the teaching profession one of honour and dignity and adequate reward so as to retain in the profession the men and women upon whom the whole system depends. That is essential, when industry in this welfare State has financial rewards to offer our mathematicians and scientists which the teaching profession cannot offer. Indeed, the House of Commons itself is a very hot competitor in absorbing some of the teaching profession. These are matters on which the right hon. Gentleman can make his name, as Secretary of State for Scotland, or lose it. Time is passing and although he has great responsibilities he has also great opportunities.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Manuel: I do not propose to follow the line taken by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs.

Sir T. Moore: Ayr.

Mr. Manuel: Yes, but the hon. and gallant Member's constituency includes mining districts which he does not like to talk about. I recognise that he has not the same grip of Scottish education as some of us who have been dealing with it. He was educated, as I understand it, in Enniskillen and Dublin and he was polished off in the Army, with some skirmishing around Ireland—

Sir T. Moore: I am none the worse for that—

Mr. Manuel: —which would not give him any great knowledge of the Scottish educational system.
Contrary to what was said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman I feel that the Report is essentially good and factual and is easily read and easy to assimilate. Accordingly, I congratulate the Secretary of State upon presenting the Report in this admirable form. We should have some regard to the background against which the Report has been drawn up. We should never forget that many of our children are suffering educationally from their war experiences. Children were among the first casualties in the war. There were infringements of school time, rationing and scarcities, evacuation from busy industrial areas and shortage of teachers. From 1945, we started against a background where many children had lacked much in the previous six years. I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Mem-

ber for East Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) is not present. He seemed to forget these things when he was talking about delinquency.
There are three aspects of this subject in which I have always taken a keen interest, although they might be considered small details. I endorse entirely what was said by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) about the importance of primary schools. It has been my main interest since I was the convener in a school in Ardrossan. I am particularly interested in the retarded child. The report calls them backward children but I do not like the word "backward," which ought not to be used because it casts a stigma which does not help the children once it becomes known that they are backward. We should regard these children as retarded in their education. I am not talking about the handicapped or spastic children but about those whose education was retarded in their early years, perhaps because they were weakly or did not put in the school attendance because of illness and so dropped behind.
Under the system that we regarded in the past as good, these retarded children never had an opportunity to come forward in their class work. Our classes of 40 to 50 were far too big in the primary schools and even in the infant classes. We are trying now to help the retarded child before eight years of age. There are many children like that who, although they are naturally intelligent, need extra coaching which they cannot be given in classes of 45, which is the average situation today. We should get these children between the ages of five and eight years, as was done in the school in which I was convener and before the child was old enough to know that he was backward. By the age of nine or 10 years they should be back in their proper age groups. If children of that age are kept back—put among younger children it gives them an abhorrence of school and they can never get any further forward.
On the question of size of classes the Report does not reveal the number of children actually affected by this overcrowding. That is a weakness in grappling with the problem. The size of classes is linked with staffing and the shortage problem generally. Nevertheless, we ought to be given a clear indication that even 45 children in a primary


school class is too many if we are to get the type of education where the teacher can give a little individual attention and help. I want it to go on record that for many years the Ayrshire education authority has said that the number ought to be 30. That may be an ideal, but if we try to attain it, I am certain that we shall do so some day.
The size of classes is also linked with the question of buildings. We need more schools in order to be able to reduce the size of classes, but many of our old schools, particularly in Glasgow, have classrooms which are already too small as classrooms. I have been in a classroom where the children in the front row were right up against the blackboard. That sort of thing is ridiculous. In such circumstances no teacher can carry out her duty to the children.
While we cannot produce the schools, we are producing plans. Allowances are made for future school buildings in the plans of municipal housing development now. Such recognition that there shall be schools when we can afford to build them is all to the good, and those schools will ultimately come. Meanwhile, we ought not completely to drop the idea of redecorating and brightening up the older schools because we know that they will not be used for ever. We should be lavish in spending money on bright paint and cleaning the woodwork in old schools which are likely to serve us for 10 years or more. That would be really worth while. When inspectors visit schools they ought to inspect not only the classrooms but also the lavatories, for the hygienic conditions in those places are not all they ought to be.
I have always taken a particularly strong line about exemptions from school attendance. According to the Report the figure is much better than it has been, though there is still a tendency for it to increase. It rose from 1,284 in 1948 to 1,415 last year. In my local education work I have always felt that I could not be a party, unless there were very exceptional circumstances, to giving a child exemption from school attendance. We have often had to fight the type of mind among our political opponents which believes that a boy or girl might be exempted to do some work for someone. The only reason why a child gets exemp-

tion today—it is also at a higher age—is to assist in the home. I am totally opposed to exemption even on that ground if another solution can be found.
It is all wrong that a little girl of 14 should become a household drudge and be responsible for the running of a home with all that that entails. Could we not have some liaison between the Departments of Health and Education so that such applicants can be advised to solve the problem by applying for home help from our Citizens' Advice Bureaux and other Home Help Centres. The value of her previous education is lost if a child is made to work between 14 and 15 instead of being at play and enjoying herself. Such a girl may become a drudge for life doing somebody else's work when she might otherwise be equipping herself for an academic or technical career during that final year.
The picture in our Scottish schools today is particularly bright. We have nothing about which to be sorry. When we visit schools we find the children looking well, happy and well-fed. There are no more bare feet and no more cases of malnutrition. If we continue in this way education should lead to a fuller, richer and happier life which breeds better feeling between individuals, and, if it does so, this companionable relationship between people will make Scotland a better place to live in.

8.27 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: I am sure that I shall be expressing the feelings of every hon. Member if I at once congratulate the hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary of State on her admirable opening speech. I have only one comment to make about it. Like other of her hon. Friends, the hon. Lady found it very difficult, I believe, to resist having a good smack at the Opposition. Once or twice in the course of her speech I thought I noticed that she was restraining herself with very great difficulty. She seemed to find it very difficult indeed to prevent the old Adam from breaking through. Well, that may be a very admirable quality in a politician, and I congratulate her on behalf of every hon. Member in the Committee.
On the whole, the Debate has been conducted on a very high level. Many speeches have been on a very high moral


plane and other speeches have shown very great technical knowledge of the subject, and yet those who have made those speeches have managed to get behind the technicalities to the spiritual qualities which our education must not only maintain but continually refresh. We have had some very forthright speeches. I believe that the highlight of the Debate has been the obvious sincerity with which hon. Members have stated their views without any thought whatever about political considerations. I agree with very much that has been said, but before I sit down it will no doubt be obvious that I do not agree with all the points which have been made.
It is apparent from the Debate that teachers, pupils and schools are necessary to education. It may be that two of these are variables, but one is absolutely constant. Pupils are much the same from one generation to another. Every generation is, I am certain, equally fond of their lessons; equally devoted to their teachers. They are equally amused when they can have a good practical joke, particularly when it is at the expense of their teacher, and they are ready at all times to have a good rough and tumble. When I hear people say—and here I exclude the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan)—that one school generation differs greatly from another, then I come to the conclusion that it is due to advancing years either warping the judgment or blurring the recollection of the person making that remark. I can see that my contention is accepted, and therefore I shall assume that the present generation is neither worse nor better in ability or conduct than those before it. If that is so, I propose to leave them there, at least for the present.
I wish to turn my attention to the teachers. Like other hon. Members who have spoken, my information is that, as a body, teachers today are somewhat dissatisfied. When I have asked for the causes of that dissatisfaction, I have been given a large variety of reasons. Other Members have given their reasons, too, and I will attempt to sum up the situation at least as I see it. Classes are far too large. That has been said time and again. After all, we have to recognise that the number of overcrowded classes has been very much reduced during the past year, and that is all to the good. But still there is some cause for irritation and here I will

give the figures to which the hon. Member for Ayrshire, Central (Mr. Manuel) referred.
There are today 243 primary classes with more than 50 pupils in them and that we have to recognise is an increase of five over the year 1948. Then in the first three years of secondary education we have 510 classes with more than 40 pupils, and in the fourth and subsequent year 110 classes with more than 30 pupils. What interests me in looking at the figures is—when does the Secretary of State expect to reach the reduced numbers he has laid down in the Schools (Scotland) Code, 1950? That still allows a higher number than the English code, where the number is 40 for primary schools and 30 for secondary schools. After all, 40 is too high. That has been said time and again today, and I agree with the hon. Member who said that 30 would be about the proper number. The figure of 45 in the Scottish code should be reduced as soon as possible.
Besides these overcrowded schools, I am told that there is also a shortage of books, a shortage of stationery and a shortage of equipment. In addition there is the considerable uncertainty of promotion. There are the long years that stretch ahead before any teacher, no matter how brilliant he or she may be, can expect even to be considered for promotion. These things, I am told, are responsible for much of the discontent which exists.
On top of these irritations there is a new and more serious cause for discontent which has only appeared during the last year or two. As has been said, teachers have long complained that they are underpaid. Every man in receipt of a salary complains about that, but up till now they have had no yardstick by which they could measure the amount of the underpayment in a way that would carry conviction to any unprejudiced person. There were the other professions of law and medicine, and the accountants, too; and we have to recognise that members of these professions were taking risks, and that there was no certainty as to the amount they could earn; and no proof at the end of the day, when everything had been taken into consideration, that they were better off than the average teacher.
But now the teacher is looking at something different. Hon. Members


have said he is looking at those in the nationalised industries, but I am talking of something more particular; he is looking at one particular section, and that is the dentists. There he sees one who has gone through a no more rigorous or lengthy course of instruction than himself and one who has no higher mental capacity and no better scholastic record. The dentist receives, with the full recognition of the State, a remuneration far higher than anything to which the teacher can ever aspire.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman wish to bring the teacher's salary up or the dentist's down?

Commander Galbraith: I can answer that question quickly. The dentist is overpaid and the teacher is underpaid. I think that is the feeling of everyone.
The discontent arising from this cause is, I am told, increased by the fact that, before the situation became as clear as it is now, there was already a feeling of a certain amount of injustice among the teachers. In order to examine whether or not that is right, I want the Committee to consider what has happened since the war. If I remember aright, it was in April, 1945, that the revised scales were introduced, and at that time they were generally accepted. Since then they have been improved under the Teachers' Salaries (Scotland) Regulations of 1948 which, I believe, are to hold good until 31st March, 1951. There were further modifications in the Regulations in 1949.
In the meantime, as the hon. Lady said, the National Joint Council has been endeavouring to get agreement on the scales which are to come into operation after 31st March, 1951. If, as I have reason to believe, negotiations have broken down, it is very much to be regretted. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will succeed in bringing the parties together again and that his meeting with Lord Teviot today will prove fruitful. Every one of us knows, to our misfortune, that the cost of living has increased since 1948, and that it has increased still more since 1945. We know, for example, that the £ of 1945 is now worth only 16s. We also know that the remuneration of most people—at least, this is the claim of many hon. Gentlemen opposite—has kept pace with

the rise in the cost of living, and that many are better off than they were before the war. That is not true of the remuneration of the teachers.
Since 1945, the number of our teachers has increased by between 3,000 and 4,000. I allude to Appendix 3, on page 70 of the Report. There we have an analysis, under various heads, of the expenditure of the local authorities. The teachers in 1945–46 received £14,374,000. If that number of teachers were to have their salaries brought up to take into account the increased cost of living, the figure for 1949–50 would have to be increased by £880,000. When we study the figures, and take into account the addition of the 3,000 to 4,000 teachers I have mentioned, it will be seen that the purchasing power of the teacher today is considerably less than it was before 1945.
These matters, and particularly the question of remuneration, may perhaps have some connection with certain disturbing trends. As I understand the position, before the war there was a Departmental ruling, departures from which were seldom, if ever, tolerated, to the effect that an honours degree, or Chapter 5 qualification, was essential if one wished to take a class beyond the second year of secondary education. My information is that it would be impossible to enforce that rule today, and that the number of honours graduates entering the profession is steadily falling. I am given to understand that at present we have something like 3,900 students in training. Only 209 of them have honours degrees. That is a number which, it is admitted, is far too few to meet our needs.
The Report draws attention to this matter. It tells us of the change in the proportion of graduate to non-graduate teachers. That fact has been mentioned already. I was indeed glad to hear from the hon. Lady that she hoped to keep up the quality and before long to return to the pre-war proportions. Reference has also been made by those taking part in the Debate— and it is also made in the Report—to the scarcity of teachers in certain special subjects. The Report says that it is a disturbing feature. If the figures which I am about to give are correct. "disturbing" is a very mild term.
My information is that in the Glasgow Training College there are today only 11 students with an honours degree in


modern languages, 11 with an honours degree in science, 13 with an honours degree in mathematics, two with an honours degree in classics and three in engineering. When we recollect that that training college is the source of supply of teachers of both sexes for the non-transferred and of male teachers for the transferred schools for the whole of South-West Scotland, it is a very serious matter indeed.
With regard to women teachers for the transferred schools, I am told that at Notre Dame and Craiglochart there are only three students today with honours degrees for the whole of Scotland. The situation really is that about half of our teachers in training have no degree at all, and that only one in 20 has an honours degree. I agree with the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton), and I do not claim for a moment that the graduate is always the best teacher, but I do think that, for the higher classes in any school, the graduate teacher, the man with high qualifications, is really essential.
If we do not have such teachers, the logical consequence must be a progressive deterioration in the higher levels of our Scottish teaching, because the majority of our future teachers have to come from the secondary schools, and if they are to receive a lower level of teaching they, in their turn, will pass on a progressively lower level when they begin to teach themselves. It has been a very long and laborious task to bring Scottish teaching up to its present level, and we must do everything within our power to see that there is no decline.
The Report hints that the supply of honours graduates is insufficient to meet the demands of education and industry, and that may well be, but unless the Secretary of State secures a just proportion for education, the supply will diminish further. Every one of us recognises with gratitude the great increase in the number of young people coming forward for training for the teaching profession, but in spite of that the demand for teachers continues and it must be met. In that connection, I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has set up the working party to help to solve the problem. From every point of view, conditions of service in the teaching profession must be such as will ensure in all respects an adequate supply of

teachers and a contented and efficient profession which is capable of maintaining the prestige of Scottish education.
I want to make one constructive suggestion which, if it can be worked out, may possibly remove some of the discontent and create more contentment. We are building new towns today. In many of our old towns there are very great housing schemes in course of development. It seems to me that there is here a great opportunity to reconsider the size of the secondary school. After all, if we can provide more schools, there will be increased opportunities for promotion, which at present are all too rare, and I am sure that it is the experience of every one of us, and of the right hon. Gentleman as well, that we must have a reasonable flow of promotion if we are to have a vital, progressive, contented and efficient service.
Now I turn to the cost of education. I feel that the question of cost has been rather brushed aside during the Debate, but, after all, when we are considering the Estimates, one of the principal things to which we should direct our attention is the cost, and the use of the money we are handing over for education. It is very difficult to ascertain what is the cost of education, and I am going to make use, for the most part, of the figures which appear in Appendix 3 under the heading of "Expenses of the Local Authorities." The increase in recent years has been very great indeed, and as yet we have not begun to embark on many of the schemes laid down in the Act of 1945, but since then the expenditure of the local authorities has gone up by £10 million, and in the last five years it has increased by one-half, not one-third, as was stated earlier in the Debate. The total expenditure—and here I am going beyond the Appendix and referring to the Estimates as well—would appear to be somewhere in the region of £36,500,000 for 1949–50, and it will be at least £2 million more for 1950–51.
I want to take the expenditure under the various heads mentioned in the Appendix, and to give a figure of 100 to the expenditure under these heads in the year 1945–46 and see what the figure is in 1949–50. Where administrative expenses were 100, they are now 157; maintenance of schools has gone up from 100 to 181; bursaries, travelling


transport, and board and lodging of pupils have gone up from 100 to 403; school meals horn 100 to 260, and other expenditure from 100 to 125. There are two remaining items, and strangely enough they are the lowest of the lot. The repayment and interest on loans has only gone up to 123, and the salaries of teachers have gone up only to 119.
I want to repeat that the total expenditure has gone up from 100 to 144, and while that has been happening the teachers' salaries have gone up from 100 to 119. It is quite impossible to criticise these various costs without a much more detailed knowledge of how they are made up, but I want to say that, where the increase in the case of any of these services is more than 50 per cent. above what it was in 1945, there should be the most stringent examination into the cause, and a much fuller explanation given to this Committee than is contained in this or in previous Reports. After all, there may be perfectly good reasons for the increasing of administration from £584,000 to £918,000, for maintenance of schools, from £3,400,000 to £6,100,000, for bursaries from £500,000 to £2 million, and for school meals from just over £1 million to just under £3 million. I do not think there is any single Member of this Committee who could adequately explain how these figures come about were he asked to do so by any of his constituents.
I come now to the question of residential schools. Under the Act, the authorities can set up boarding schools if they consider it expedient to do so. Thirteen have been set up, but the Report gives no information about them, possibly because they have not been in existence long enough. But both in regard to residential schools and to hostels, of which there are 18, I hope that in the next Report we shall be told how they are managed, who is in charge of the pupils, whether they are proving a success, and what is the actual cost.
There has been a great increase in the amount and in the number of bursaries. Last year alone, there was an increase in the number of awards amounting to 6,000, and the amount spent on these awards was £250,000. The total amount of the bursaries for 1948–49 was over £1 million. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman quite seriously whether he considers that

all these awards are justified. I would also like to know whether they are made on some uniform basis of assessment, and whether they are scrutinised by some impartial body. I ask that, not because I wish to deny higher school or university education to any boy or girl who can benefit from it, but because I believe—and here, I think, I have the Director of Education of Ross-shire with me—there are only a limited number who are capable of benefiting from that education, and to give that education to some others at least may well do them a very great disservice.
There is the question of smaller classes, which has loomed so large in our Debate today. I have always felt that it was a mistake to have raised the school-leaving age before we had reduced the size of the classes, but I am perfectly certain that there is no putting the clock back now. Anyway, the raising of the school-leaving age has impelled authorities to build, although it has postponed the day of classes of a reasonable size. It has also resulted, of course, in a reduction in the standard of education of the present generation. We regret these results. They cannot be helped. The provision of rooms is proceeding slowly, and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Mr. Stewart), I was distressed to read in the Report that:
… acute problems of accommodation will continue to arise in our new housing areas.
Surely, it is not necessary, if we have reasonable planning. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have made representations on this matter, and I wish to acknowledge the courtesy with which he has replied to me on that subject. As a result of inadequate planning, there is a very serious situation within my constituency and, as other hon. Members are in the same position, I want to give the facts about it very briefly.
There are three great housing schemes in my constituency—Pollok, Housilwood and Priesthill. The present population is 31,500. Two years from now it will be 45,500. The school population today is 7,900. There is no secondary school, and the primary schools, such as do exist, are temporary in nature and character, and quite inadequate. So inadequate is the provision of schools that 4,700 pupils have to be transported daily to schools all over Glasgow at an annual cost of £25,000. I know the right hon. Gentleman is doing


all he can do to remedy that situation, but when I say that nine primary schools and three secondary schools are required, it will be realised that it will be a large' number of years before the situation can be coped with.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) remarked that houses came before schools. In general, I agree in particular, I do not. Where there are great housing schemes like these, houses and schools must go up together. I was also depressed that the warning of the 1948 Report was repeated:
It is accommodation which will be the limiting factor of educational development during the next decade.
What is so sacrosanct about this next decade? Is it necessary to wait for the next decade before we can get rid of the difficulty of accommodation? Surely there is here no law of the Medes and Persians that cannot be altered. It looks as if the Department has accepted the situation and has said, "It is very unfortunate, but we cannot do anything about it." I hope that is not the case.
It is regrettable to note that the Report still has to say that scholastic standards, even now, are not as high as they were before the war. It was always my belief that the standard of education before the war and now could be far higher if we did not attempt too much. We attempt to give a smattering of too many subjects before there is a real foundation of basic subjects on which to build, and there, I think, I have with me the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), my hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith) and also, I believe, the hon. Member for Ayrshire, Central (Mr. Manuel).
Be that as it may, it is gratifying to know that we are progressing towards pre-war standards. Progress is being made, but, as the hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary of State said, there is no room for complacency. There is still much more to be done before we regain pre-war standards, and before we can consider our system of education is satisfactory.
May the Department and the education authorities press on with their work, and may they and the great body of teachers even find some encouragement from our Debate today. If it has been critical, it

has only been critical because we take an interest in this great subject and in the greatly appreciated work of those who strive so hard, and so faithfully, to improve the standard and to maintain the prestige of Scottish education.

8.55 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hector McNeil): I know that I am speaking for my colleagues on the Front Bench when I thank the Committee for the high level of debate and for the moderate and constructive tone which has been adopted. I should particularly like to say to the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) that we are indeed indebted to him. He has addressed to me several queries which I shall try to answer. I should like to add that he has made a very reasonable point in saying that we as a Committee are entitled to more details of expenditure. I can assure him that we will consider this matter to see whether we can expand these details next year.
I think it will be convenient to divide the discussion into more or less four heads, and I will try to answer questions in those four divisions. That was the route which, broadly speaking, the Debate followed. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) once said that I had written about a speech he had made that it was very good. I am very sorry that he is no longer in his place, because I should like to tell him that his speech tonight was not one of his better speeches, and I might have given reasons for it.
He diverged from the general line, and we saw him once more haunted by this dreadful fear of the welfare State. Some hon. Members opposite, for an understandable reason, can never say that they are against the welfare State. The understandable reason is that their constituents would tear them to tatters if they did. But now and again they permit themselves a little timid divergence, and they try to hang some blame on the welfare State. Once more we had the hon. and gallant Member and one other hon. Member saying that perhaps the deficiencies in our present educational system, which deficiencies we on this side of the Committee would agree exist, are due to the welfare State.
Broadly speaking, the discussion was concerned, first of all, with the physical


side, the building side. The hon. and gallant Member for Pollok drew attention to the increase in expenditure. I would be the first to admit that this is the primary business for discussion here, and we should do less than our duty if we did not attempt to scrutinise, control, and explain the expenses. I am inclined to think that, while he was very moderate and said that he wanted more details, he was a little hurried about some of his conclusions, but I do not put it stronger than that.
He did us a service in reducing his comparative figures to the two periods 1945–46 and 1949–50. He showed us that the biggest jump was in the fourth item relating to travelling, transport and board and lodgings of pupils. I suggest that this is an item where we were bound to have a very big jump. He will remember that the whole matter of transport expenses has been changed in that period. I am not quoting the exact test, but he knows that nowadays if a child is attending a secondary school and lives more than three miles away these expenses are frequently automatically met without question. He will remember, too, as I am sure the Committee remembers, that we found that we had to vary the basis upon which bursaries were awarded for the very reason which worries the hon. and gallant Gentleman. When first they came into operation in 1947, we found that there was considerable variation from district to district.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman asks me: Is there now a uniform standard? I think I should be stretching things if I said that there was a uniform standard, but I would say that, after careful revision of all the figures in the first year's working, we changed the regulations so that there is a uniform minimum available in each local authority area, and provided the child satisfies the university entrance stage and is of the required age, then examination is made only of the father's income and the bursary award is made upon that same uniform, and I think quite just, basis. Of course, that change has meant a very large jump indeed. I think it is entirely reasonable, however, that we should have information, and I will see whether we can arrange that for the next Session.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked a number of questions about building and made some suggestions on that subject. He was joined in those questions by the hon. Member for Hillhead (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith), who referred to the Report and regretted the fact that the H.O.R.S.A. scheme was running down, while we were still admitting this great scarcity of places in the general school situation. He asked me why that had happened, and, in fact, asked me pretty bluntly what I intended to do about it.
With great respect, I think he is guilty here of a little confusion. The H.O.R.S.A. scheme was an emergency scheme under which the Government admitted that the local authorities, through causes quite out-with their control—the war situation—had been unable to pursue what would have been their normal responsibility, the building of schools; and the Government went in to carry them over that gap. I think it will generally be agreed, and in my recollection no one contended otherwise today, that that is what has happened. I do not think the hon. Member for Hillhead is asking me or the Government to say to local authorities, "We will do the job." I would not want to do that; I would not want to take any educational responsibilities away from local authorities in Scotland.
The job of the Government is to see that the facilities are available for the local authorities to do their job and the Committee are quite right to question whether or not this is happening. I think it is happening. I think that, on reflection, the Committee will agree, for two very simple reasons, that the Government have been doing their job. The first reason is that the capital allotment for educational building has, unfortunately, not been taken up so far. The second reason is to be found if one takes, say, the City of Aberdeen and other cities in a comparable position. They have the same facilities made available to them and yet, from the point of view of school buildings, the City of Aberdeen is in an incomparably better position than any other town or city in Scotland.
I am very eager to congratulate the people of Aberdeen, but I hope that in this year the other local authorities will strain themselves to the uttermost to take up all the portion of the capital investment programme allotted to them. My hon.


Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State has already quoted figures and showed that, for new building alone, we have this year an allotment of £3.74 million, and we have a further allotment of £600,000 for maintenance. I will go a little further. I cannot, of course, go outside the gross allotment in the capital investment programme; that is a physical impossibility. But I will say very cheerfully that if the demand from local authorities in the oncoming year exceeds this figure of £4.34 million, I shall be prepared to find additional money at the expense of some other sector of the capital investment programme in Scotland.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: May I ask my right hon. Friend a question on this point? Does he mean that he will be prepared to remove the ban on building nursery schools?

Mr. McNeil: No. I dislike the use of the word "ban." I know the warm and sincere interest of my hon. Friend on this subject.

Mr. Hughes: May I point out to my right hon. Friend that the word is in his own Report.

Mr. McNeil: Then I apologise to my hon. Friend for having concurred in the use of such a word. What I should prefer to say is that I must apply this sector of the programme in the most urgent educational tasks, and I think that the Committee will agree that the most urgent ones are the provision of places in primary schools and, to a lesser degree, the provision of technical and secondary places.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked me if we could not hurry that process. He asked me at what period I would predict that the size of the class of 45 pupils per class would be overtaken. I shall be dishonest if I offer a figure. It will depend primarily on the rate of building by local authorities. There must be limits as long as there are so many demands—these competing demands—upon our investment programme. But I am not tied to a decade. I shall be eager to assist the local authorities and the Committee. But we should admit to ourselves that there is a great deal of slack, that there are new commitments, and that it will be a long job demanding the energy and ingenuity of us all.
In connection with that he made a proposal about smaller classes in re-

lation to promotion. I think that that is an entirely reasonable proposal, and I should think that, as the building programme for the new housing schemes develops, and as the bulge in the graph of the child population disappears, then the lopping off of the temporary parts of these new primary schools will indeed make smaller schools—make the average size of the schools smaller—so that, therefore, a larger number of schools over the whole programme will be made available.
The second series of questions, of course, turned to staffing. The question of the supply of teachers, as the Committee knows, was dealt with by the Advisory Council; and as a result of that, as the Committee knows, the emergency scheme was launched; and the emergency scheme has been a great success. What has been said about the high quality of the men and women coming in through the emergency scheme should be borne in mind when we are offering dogmatic assertions as to what ought to be the qualifications of teachers. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, of course, did not make that kind of assertion. I want to be quite fair.
Since the Council reported, of course, the situation has been watched most carefully, and there has been continual review by the National Committee and by the Department. The forecasts of the Council, I am assured, have been remarkably accurate, and, as a result, we are within sight of overcoming our present staffing difficulties, and of dealing with these developments, such as the raising of the age, which have occurred since the war. Now, we are entering into a new phase, and the Committee has focussed attention upon it, and it is proper that we should admit it.
Having made these advances, other developments and other consequences are upon us. The new schools which are going up in housing areas—not as fast as anyone would like—are making fresh demands upon the teaching population. Moreover, we have a delightful dilemma in that the increased birth-rate and the reduced infant mortality rate are giving us an increasing school population, and we have to meet that.
The hon. and gallant Member for Pollok referred to the departmental committee which has been set up. Their remit is:


To ascertain the existing and to estimate the prospective vacancies for teachers in schools and other educational establishments; and, having regard to the trends in recruitment and to the circumstances of the times, to estimate the number of recruits likely to be obtained; and to report to the Secretary of State from time to time.
That is one side of the staffing difficulty. Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson Stewart), referred to the shortages in certain classes of teachers, and to the shortages in graduates. I think the hon. Member unwittingly did an injustice when he described the 900 uncertificated teachers as being rather second-class, and certainly not graduates. That is not necessarily true, and I should be glad to offer the hon. Gentleman an analysis of these uncertificated teachers. We actually have amongst them some honours graduates; we have specialist teachers; and the point is that they are not qualified in the sense of training college attendance and having obtained training college status.
But that does not affect the main question, that there is a shortage of graduates and honours graduates, particularly in maths and science—which the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok, quite properly, said is a good deal more disturbing. I should like to make it plain to the Committee that, while it is truly disturbing, it is not a situation which alarms me. It is a situation in which, in some respects, the Committee must delight, because it flows primarily from the fact that industry and commerce in this country are now acknowledging the need for higher education and the place of the graduate and the honours graduate in an efficient, throbbing and vital economy.
When I get the next report from this departmental committee, I propose to go a stage further and set up a working party which will embrace both the universities and the industrial and commercial side to consider the probable supply of this type of teacher and the probable demand, and to make recommendations on interim remedies. I, of course, have not the advice of the experts upon this subject and I cannot therefore commit myself yet, but if I might give a short example, in this situation it would not seem impossible to me to seek to encourage, as a temporary measure and upon

a sessional basis, maths and science honours students from our universities who might quite easily teach in the first and second years of our secondary schools, leaving the critical third, fourth and fifth years to qualified honours graduates who are already in our service. I merely offer that as an example. If our predictions about the call of industry and commerce upon honours graduates are happily borne out we shall have to adopt some temporary measures.
The hon. Members for Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith), and for Fife, East, and my hon. Friends the Members for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton), Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), and Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) alluded to our obligations towards teachers—their salary level and their working conditions. I do not seek to touch that at all. My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary has already alluded to the further stages in negotiations which I hope may take place, and the Committee will excuse me if I do not discuss these, because I must not anticipate what is being done. I want to say that there are obligations, and as a Government we mean to meet them.
I doubt if we shall attract to this profession the men and women we want, merely by adjusting the salary levels. When we consult our own experience, we know perfectly well that, happily, salary is not a dominating factor in peopling the important sectors of our social life. If it were, I doubt if we would have the higher civil servants who are such a distinguished feature of British life. I certainly know that in the church, on the bench, and in a great many sectors of our life there are no glittering prizes such as commerce and industry offer. I think that if we are to attract to this essential and noble profession the people we want, we must take great care that they are given reasonable and adequate reward, but it will be other features in the profession which will attract them.
I was a little alarmed by the hon. Member for Hillhead who wanted to cut out the falderals in education. I like the hon. Member for his courage in saying quite bluntly: "I want the three R's and I think that it is nonsense to teach typing until you are sure that they can spell." I think that he is wrong. It is a dreadful confession. Think of the days when we knew little more than that. It is claimed


that Scotland in those days turned out a whole nation of literate, educated, vital self-confident people. But the facts do not square at all with this claim. Would the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan), if I pressed him on this point, really contend that the agricultural labourer who was forced to work for 20s. a week, with no safeguards about his working conditions at all, would have done so if he had come out of school, as we like to pretend, a virile, self-reliant, literate, Scottish boy? It is not so; he would not have been there. The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) is not going to tell the Committee that he is going to be satisfied with the Scottish education system if boys and girls come out of school like well-drilled little penguins, able to put letters together, as we sometimes see them do in a circus.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I only say that typewriting is much more like the penguins he is describing than handwriting. My hon. Friend was saying that it would be a good thing to be able to shell. Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not going to deny that.

Mr. McNeil: The hon. Member for Hillhead went a hit further than that. He said "give me the three R's and then think about the other things." I think that he inferred that if we did so we should have a vigorous, virile, robust and self-reliant Scottish population. It is not so. The great tragedy of the Scottish educational system was that the village school turned out one, two, or perhaps half a dozen, distinguished girls and boys—usually boys—hut did not pay attention to the rest of the class.
The hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Stewart) properly directed our attention to the magnificent Report on Secondary Education produced by the Advisory Council. Like everyone who has referred to it, I want once more to record my congratulations and thanks to the Advisory Council, including the hon. Member for Fife, East. When I went back to the Report last night, I came across this phrase in paragraph 133:
We have assumed throughout this Report the immense value of the modern science of education, with its techniques and its psychological equipment; but, unless we are to go

back on all we have said about human personality, we must attach an equal importance to the immemorial art of teaching. There is an understanding which comes not from analysis and observation but rather intuitively, from the slow commerce of person with person, a spiritual quality in the relation of teacher and taught which has been nobly affirmed by Jacques Maritain—What is of most importance to the educator is a respect for the soul as well as the body of the child, the sense of his inmost essence and internal resources, and a sort of sacred and loving attention to his mysterious identity, which is a hidden thing no techniques can reach'.
That is a hidden thing which no technique can reach. I do not believe we are going to reach this mysterious identity or give it an outlet to express itself, or produce the reliant, robust, curious boy and girl who comes out of school as lively as he goes in, equipped to tackle his worries and questions, by dull, rigid methods—certainly not by concentrating upon "the three R's." I do not think we shall do it by saying to these men and women from our universities, "Cut out the falderals and come here and drill these children."
I was asked about my attitude towards this Report. I say, without reservation, that I accept the general tenor of the Report, and that in this perhaps the most solemn sector of the important Scottish Office, I shall be wary of cranks and fads. So long as I am at this job, I shall consider benevolently any person or method that seems likely to measure up to that report and produce a lively and curious Scottish child. I am circulating a memorandum very soon, which will be the first of the series in which I am hoping to elucidate and illustrate my views.
The hon. Member for Fife, East, also asked me about primary schools. We must not, of course, neglect the primary schools. I have had the recommendations and curricula offered by the panel of inspectors brought up to date, and I hope also to circulate that very soon. Of course, I shall make a whole bag of errors, because no one can be certain about what the purpose of education should be. I believe, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, that this is a question which has been answered differently in every generation.
But, do not let us have dull or apologetic people. Do not let us think that our undistinguished stage, or our shabby screen, or the squalid periodicals, are the


fault of these 16 and 17-year olds who buy them or go there. They are not. It is our own fault, because we have not made up our minds what we want from our schools, and I hope to try to add such life as I can, and by that method I hope we will attract into this profession those men and women we so badly need.
Reference was made to the scarcity of text books and equipment. That is true and we are all very anxious about it, but when I recently made inquiries I was told that there now was no appreciable shortage of text books, and I shall be glad to look at any shortages to which my attention is directed. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore), who is against controls, invited me to assume dictatorial powers. He wants me to ban the trashy novels, and presumably to direct the paper to text books. I shall not look for these powers; I could not use them, but if we bring our children up in a lively, self-reliant and vigorous frame of mind, which the whole Committee want, they will dispose of these trashy novels by themselves.

9.26 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: I want to thank the right hon. Gentleman who has very courteously left me a minute or two to put a point to the Committee. Hon. Members need not be apprehensive; I am not going to renew the Debate. I rise because, as the Committee well knows, at 9.30 the outstanding Votes will be put. This used to be a great occasion, because it gave an opportunity to those who desired to make good rather poor Division records. That is a thing of the past. The crack of the whip tells hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that they have got to be in their places, and I am glad to see that the Patronage Secretary agrees with me on that point.
I desire to inform the Committe that on this occasion as on previous occasions recently, we do not propose to divide against any of these Votes. Our reason for that is not that we do not disagree in places with certain of the Votes. We do, and we should like to show our disagreement by voting against them, but there are other parts of the Votes with which we agree entirely, and if we voted against the one we should be voting against the others also. Hon. Gentlemen will understand the implications

which arise in these circumstances. It is for that reason that we do not propose to divide against these outstanding Votes.

Question put, and agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded, pursuant to the Order of the House this day, forthwith to put severally the Questions, That the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the several Classes of the Civil Estimates, including Supplementary Estimates, and the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the Revenue Departments and Ministry of Defence Estimates, and in the Navy, the Army, and the Air Estimates, be granted for the Services defined in those Classes and Estimates.

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

CLASS I

"That a sum, not exceeding £10,395,094, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class 1 of the Civil Estimates, namely:



£


1. House of Lords
59,429


2. House of Commons
588,000


3. Registration of Electors
500,000


5. Privy Council Office
18,802


6. Privy Seal Office
5,585


7. Charity Commission
47,102


8. Civil Service Commission
338,750


9. Exchequer and Audit Department
216,560


10. Government Actuary
16,523


11. Government Chemist
128,418


12. Government Hospitality
60,000


13. The Mint
90


14. National Debt Office
90


15. National Savings Committee
585,236


16. Overlapping Income Tax Payments
33,000


17. Public Record Office
51,066


18. Public Works Loan Commission
90


19. Repayments to the Local
Loans Fund
43,431


20. Royal Commissions, etc.
88,200


21. Secret Service
2,000,000


22. Tithe Redemption Commission
90


23. Silver
1,550,000


24. American Aid Counterpart
Funds
3,900,000


25. Miscellaneous Expenses
117,398


25A. Repayments to the Civil
Contingencies Fund
31,693


Scotland:



27. Scottish Record Office
15,541



£10,395,094."

Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS II

"That a sum, not exceeding £53,840,748, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of the Civil Estimates, namely:



£


1. Foreign Service
8,326,922


2. Foreign Office Grants and Services (including a Supplementary sum of £1,717,000)
8,759,900


3. British Council
1,376,000


4. United Nations
460,000


5. InternationalRefugee Organisation
2,294,500


6. Commonwealth Relations Office
994,806


7. Commonwealth Services (including a Supplementary sum of £28,900)
890,981


8. Overseas Settlement (including a Supplementary sum of £400,000)
552,424


9. Colonial Office
561,865


10. Colonial and Middle Eastern Services (including a Supplementary sum of £1,960,000)
15,665,770


11. West African Produce Control Board
1,000


12. Development and Welfare (Colonies, etc.)
12,650,000


13. Development and Welfare (South African High Commission Territories)
238,500


14. Imperial War Graves Commission
1,068,080



£53,840,748"

Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS III

"That a sum, not exceeding £34,313,310, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class Ill of the Civil Estimates, namely:



£


3. Police, England and Wales
18,058,250


4. Prisons,Englandand Wales
3,241,038


5. Child Care, England and Wales
5,867,900


6. Fire Services, England and Wales
2,199,230


7. Supreme Court of Judicature, etc.
490,600


8. County Courts, etc.
170,195


9. Land Registry
90


10. Public Trustee
90


11. Law Charges
296,858


12. Miscellaneous Legal Ex-penses
17,350


Scotland:



14. Police
2,638,091


15. Prisons
311,516


17. Fire Services
311,400






£


18. Scottish Land Court
9,400


19. Law Charges and Courts of Law
97,447


20. Department of the Registers of Scotland
90


Ireland:



21. Supreme Court of Judicature, etc., Northern Ireland
12,705


22. Irish Land Purchase Services
591,060



£34,313,310."

Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS IV

"That a sum, not exceeding £148,964,120, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Civil Estimates, namely:



£


1. Ministry of Education
129,680,305


2. British Museum
174,064


3. British Museum (Natural History)
142,886


4. Imperial War Museum
19,888


5. London Museum
8,880


6. National Gallery
46,695


7. National Maritime Museum
16,198


8. National Portrait Gallery
11,995


9. Wallace Collection
17,621


10. Grants for Science and the Arts
2,469,972


12. Broadcasting
12,085,000


13. Festival of Britain, 1951
4,262,625


Scotland:



15. National Galleries
18,898


16. National Library
9,093



£148,964,120."

Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS V

"That a sum, not exceeding £557,173,699, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Civil Estimates, namely:



£


2. National Health Service, England and Wales
231,541,000


3. Housing, Englandand Wales
38,750,000


4. Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, England and Wales
32,550,000


5. Registrar General's Office
329,586


6. Ministry of Labour and National Service
14,800,000


7. Grants in respect of Employment Schemes
550,000


8. Ministry of National Insurance
141,595,000


9. National Assistance Board
56,190,000


10. National Insurance Audit Department
40,710







£


11. Friendly Societies Registry
37,970


12. Ministry of Town and Country Planning
949,000


13. Central Land Board
986,000


Scotland:



15. National Health Service
27,394,000


16. Housing
7,703,000


17. Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues
3,710,000


18. Registrar General's Office
47,433



£557,173,699."

Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS VI

"That a sum, not exceeding £109,908,839, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Civil Estimates, namely:



£


1. Board of Trade (including a Supplementary sum of £76,010)
6,189,405


2. Services in Development Areas
4,201,000


3. Financial Assistance in Development Areas
410,010


4. Export Credits
90


5. Export Credits (Special Guarantees)
230,000


6. Ministry of Fuel and Power
4,015,000


7. Office of Commissioners of Crown Lands
43,295


8. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
11,816,290


9. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Food Production Services) (including a Supplementary sum of £2,430,000)
28,833,376


10. Surveys of Great Britain, &amp;c.
1,529,380


11. Forestry Commission
4,350,000


12. Development Fund
840,000


13. Ministry of Transport
1,728,350


14. Roads, &amp;c.
19,224,000


15. Mercantile Marine Services
342,100


16. Ministry of Civil Aviation
14,180,410


17. Development Grants
2,000


18. Department of Scientific and Industrial Research
3,672,384


19. State Management Districts
90


Scotland:



20. Department of Agriculture
2,371,000


21. Department of Agriculture (Food Production Services) (including a Sup-plementary sum of £280,000)
4,499,500


22. Fisheries (including a Sup-plementarysumof £630,000)
1,105,769


23. Herring Industry
325,300


24. State Management Districts
90



£109,908,839."

Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS VII

"That a sum, not exceeding £25,022,105, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Civil Estimates, namely:



£


1. Ministry of Works
5,012,470


2. Houses of Parliament Buildings
527,500


3A.Oxford andAsquith Memorial
150


4. Public Buildings Overseas
1,533,155


5. Royal Palaces
247,550


6. Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens
479,100


7. Miscellaneous Works Services
2,682,100


8. Rates on Government Property
6,444,255


9. Stationery and Printing
6,158,135


10. Central Office of Information
1,751,000


11. Peterhead Harbour
34,000


Ireland:



12. Works and Buildings in Ireland
152,690



£25,022,105"

Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS VIII

"That a sum, not exceeding £58,424,500, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII of the Civil Estimates, namely:



£


1. Merchant Seamen's War Pensions
146,500


2. Ministry of Pensions
53,430,000


3. Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, &amp;c.
690,000


4. Superannuation and Retired Allowances
4,158,000



£58,424,500"

Question put, and agreed to.

CLASS IX

"That a sum, not exceeding £321,087,109, me granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IX of the Civil Estimates, namely:


1. Ministry of Supply
45,500,000


2. Ministry of Supply (Trading Services and Assistance to Industry)
7,238,010


3. Ministry of Food
247,011,635







£


4. Ministry of Transport (Shipping and War Terminal Services)
7,4587,000


5. Ministry of Fueland Power (War Services)
250,000


6. Foreign Office (German Section) (including a Supplementary sum of £2,455,000)
5,678,464


7. Administration of certain African Territories
1,444,000


8. Advances to Allies, &amp;c.
5,250,000


9. War Damage Commission
1,027,000


10. Burma War Damage Payments
230,000



£321,087,109"

Question put, and agreed to.

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1950–51

"That a sum, not exceeding £139,660,895, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments, namely:


1. Customs and Excise
6,330,400


2. Inland Revenue
16,539,495


3. Post Office
116,791,000



£139,660,895"

Question put, and agreed to.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE ESTIMATE, 1950–51

"That a sum, not exceeding £3,796,779 (including a Supplementary sum of £3,249,990), be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Defence; expenses in connection with International Defence Organisations and a contribution towards certain expenses incurred in the United Kingdom by the Government of the United States of America."

Question put, and agreed to.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1950–51

"That a sum, not exceeding £103,037,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, namely:



£


3. Medical Establishments and Services
1,512,000


5. Educational Services
738,000


7. Royal Naval Reserves
1,235,000


8. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.:



Section I.—Personnel
25,768,000


Section II.—Matériel
24,550,000


Section III.—Contract Work
31,677,000






£


9. Naval Armaments
12,061,000


12. Admiralty Office
5,350,000


14. Merchant Shipbuilding, etc.
146,000



£103,037,000"

Question put, and agreed to.

"That a sum, not exceeding £161,423,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services, namely:



£


3. War Office
2,295,000


4. Civilians
44,605,000


5. Movements
21,650,000


6. Supplies, etc.
33,020,000


7. Stores
57,820,000


9. Miscellaneous Effective Services
2,033,000



£161,423,000"

Question put, and agreed to.

AIR ESTIMATES, 1950–51

"That a sum, not exceeding £59,922,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1951, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Services, namely:



£


3. AirMinistry
2,858,000


4. Civilians at Outstations
19,152,000


5. Movements
8,450,000


6. Supplies
27,900,000


9. Miscellaneous Effective Services
1,562,000



£59,922,000"

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Resolved:
That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on 31st day of March, 1951, the sum of £1,857,265,078 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom." —[Mr. Jay.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

TOMATO AND CUCUMBER MARKETING SCHEME

9.35 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): I beg to move,
That the Draft Tomato and Cucumber Marketing Scheme, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th July, be approved.
As the House knows, it is almost exactly 20 years since the present Lord Privy Seal, then the Minister of Agriculture, with the full support of his colleagues in the Cabinet of that day, came to the conclusion that machinery was necessary to promote the orderly marketing of agricultural produce. The view of the Government of that day was that this was necessary both for the good of the agricultural industry and for the good of the consumers, and the decision which they then took led to the introduction in 1931 of the first Agricultural Marketing Bill. Since that day, for very nearly 20 years this has remained the firm policy of the Labour Party.
The Labour Government which came to an end just before the General Election this year gave very great consideration to the whole problem of agricultural marketing in the light of the circumstances ruling in these days, and it was decided by that Government as a matter of policy that it was still desirable to enable agricultural producers to have facilities for organising themselves for the better marketing of their produce. They decided that the earlier Marketing Acts needed bringing up to date to keep in line with modern thought and with the change of circumstances in the 20 years which had passed since 1931; and, in particular, the decision was taken that Ministers should be given rather more powers of control over the activity of marketing boards than they had under the original Act to ensure that they did not act in a manner contrary to the public interest. It was to bring about those changes in the Marketing Acts that we had the Marketing (Amendment) Act of last year which gave Ministers these considerably wider powers.
I mention this to begin with, because it is in the light of this general policy of the Labour Party going back for 20 years and the decisions which the last

Government took, and the changes in the marketing law which we brought about, that the present marketing scheme which I am asking the House to approve should be judged. There has been no doubt on the part of anybody who has examined this question about the desirability of, and, indeed, the essential need for, this kind of marketing arrangement. In 1922 a Committee under the chairmanship of the Marquess of Linlithgow went into this, and I should like to quote a paragraph from the Report which puts the thing very clearly and has been endorsed by almost every Committee and everyone who has examined this matter down to the last Committee, which is still fresh in the minds of hon. Members. The Report said:
It is in the direction of bringing production into relation with the requirements of the markets and of standardising and improving the marketability of farm products that producer co-operation can perform beyond dispute an undoubted and invaluable economic service.
I believe that to be a fairly classic statement of what the Marketing Acts set out to do.
An essential feature of our industry to remember as a background to our discussion about this—I ask hon. Members in all parts of the House to recall it—is that the production of nearly all of our chief food supplies is in the hands of many thousands of separate producers scattered up and down the country, with established and very often conflicting habits, traditions and prejudices. It seems to me that there must be an overall plan in which they will be willing to cooperate if we are to avoid complete anarchy and considerable confusion. They need an organisation which is able to render them many valuable services, about which I shall say a word in a minute or two, quite apart from any question of price stabilisation. Many of these services can only be rendered effectively by or through an association of producers, and in a moment I will say a word as to why I think that is so.
Most hon. Members, and also people outside the House, will admit that in the particular case of fruit and vegetables these Islands can produce crops of as good a quality as can be produced anywhere in the world, and


a good deal better than those grown in most other places. Those of us who have been connected with the industry, either as producers or representatives of agricultural and horticultural workers, will certainly know that in the horticultural industry we have a great body of people and a wealth of skill, experience and equipment, and highly productive land, which has been slowly and laboriously built up over the years.
It seems to us that this important industry is entitled to the benefits of a reliable marketing system, and certainly that the workers in it are entitled to ask for much more settled conditions than those that they have at times experienced. Now that we have the powers which Ministers have to control such a plan and to secure the passing on of the benefits of efficiency, and to ensure reliable high quality produce from the producer to the consumer, it seems right that we should do what we can to encourage our producers to take advantage of the position that exists.
I would say that a number of problems confront our home tomato industry in particular. That I cannot think will be denied by anyone, no matter what view they may take about the methods of dealing with them. First, there is the problem connected with consumer demand. In the past this industry has supplied a special part, but only a part. of the British consumer demand. The home producer is not in a position to satisfy the whole demand. I have the figures here, but I shall not weary the House with them. It seems unlikely that the industry can supply more than a part of the demand and that, in itself, brings the problem of winter demand, with the variability of our weather and so on.
How big a part it can supply depends on the high level of quality and the lowest practicable level of cost which the industry can reach, if the community wishes the industry to keep pace with the continuously expanding demand for high quality tomatoes. The production figures show that there is a continually expanding demand in this country for fresh tomatoes.
The endeavour of the producers to improve their own efficiency through organisation must be encouraged, and

equally I should have thought it obvious that it is not much use for us to exhort the producers to greater efficiency if we are not willing to give them the means with which to bring about that greater efficiency in the marketing of their produce.
Another major marketing problem derives clearly from the uncontrollable fluctuation of supplies due to periods of cold and hot weather. In periods of subnormal supply or abnormal demand. the tomatoes must be widely spread to ensure fair supplies. When the position is the other way round, as it can quite easily be in a matter of days or weeks and there is a period of above-normal supply or subnormal demand, they must be widely spread for different reasons in order to utilise the demand fully and to avoid waste.
The main problems, therefore, are first the reduction of production and marketing costs, to which I think this scheme has a lot to contribute; the maintenance of quality, to which I think the Marketing Board certainly will have a lot to contribute, and the improvement of the assembly and direction of supplies in a manner which will facilitate the best distribution and the least waste.
May I say a word on the purpose of the scheme in front of us—

Brigadier Peto: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, may I ask him whether, with a reduction of costs, it is his opinion that, as a result of this marketing scheme, prices of vegetables and produce will come down?

Mr. Brown: In this scheme we are dealing only with tomatoes and cucumbers and not vegetables generally. The point I have made, and the effect on the costs of getting the produce to the distributors, will emerge in the course of what I have to say. A lot of it is on that point, but in the course of this Debate I shall not give a wider discourse on the question of retail vegetable distribution. That is a different problem to which this is not the answer.
The scheme before the House has been prepared and submitted in accordance with the Marketing Acts of 1931 to 1949. It seeks powers for the regulation of the marketing in Great Britain of tomatoes


and cucumbers by a Board partly, and in the main, elected by the producers of these products and, in part, appointed by the Minister. The promoters of the scheme, as is required, are drawn from the National Farmers' Unions of England and Wales and Scotland. Tomatoes are grown under glass by about 6,000 producers, about 3,000 produce tomatoes in the open, and there are about 2,000 producers of cucumbers in England and Wales all of whom are members of the National Farmers' Unions. There are over 500 producers of tomatoes in Scotland who are members of the National Farmers' Union of Scotland.
These figures represent considerable majorities of the producers of these products in the countries I have mentioned. Therefore, we may take it that the promoters of this scheme are substantially representative of the producers of tomatoes and cucumbers, as the Act requires. The scheme was first submitted to my right 'non. Friends the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland, in April, 1948. We followed the procedure laid down in the main Marketing Act for the hearing of objections. A public inquiry was held from 23rd to 26th November, 1948.
Following the receipt of the report of the Commissioner, my right hon. Friends decided upon a number of modifications which they thought should be made in the draft scheme. After consideration, the promoters assented to the modifications being made. My right hon. Friends, having satisfied themselves that the draft scheme, in the form in which it is now before the House, will conduce to the more efficient production and marketing of tomatoes and cucumbers, submit it for the approval of this House.
The Board which the scheme proposes to set up is to be, in part, elected by the registered producers on a regional basis. There will be 13 districts. Eleven have been allocated to England, and one each to Wales, including Monmouthshire, and to Scotland. The number of representatives to be elected by the registered producers in each district will vary from one to three according to the productive capacity in tomatoes and cucumbers of the district concerned.

Section 1 (1) of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1949, requires that my right hon. Friends shall appoint not less than two and not more than one-fifth of the members of the Board from among persons who are experienced in the fields of commerce, finance, administration, public affairs or the organisation of workers, or who are conversant with the interests of consumers. On this basis, my right hon. Friends propose to appoint four members to the Tomato and Cucumber Marketing Board. The object of these appointments is to produce a balanced Board on which the specialised knowledge of the producer members will be leavened by the wider experience of the appointed members.
I cannot tell the House at the moment the names of the persons whom my right hon. Friends will appoint to the Board, but I can say—and I know that this will interest some of my hon. Friends in particular—that certainly one of the four will be thoroughly representative of the consumer point of view. Of course, all of the four will be consumers as distinct from the sense in which the rest of the Board will be producers.

Mr. Wilkes: Why only one of the four? Why not all four? Four out of 20 is not a very good representation of the consumer interest.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is entitled to submit his point of view. We have, as 1 quoted from the Act, a number of fields of service to the community from which it is permissible to draw this leavening. All four will be consumers of tomatoes as distinct from producers of tomatoes. Therefore, in that sense, the point made by my hon. Friend is met. One of them will be distinct from the other three consumers, in that he or she will be specially appointed for his or her knowledge of the consumer organisation and its point of view. I deliberately made the point that all the four people will be consumers, as distinct from producers.
May I now say just a word about the powers and duties which attach to Marketing Boards of this character, and examine against that background, since it is of some importance, the particular powers and duties which this Board will have under this scheme. First of all, it should be able to establish conditions under which the sale of the producer's


product will give confidence both to the producers and to the consumers. It should be able to encourage the regular and methodical supply of these markets in accordance with current needs. It should develop consumer demand, both by improving the character, standard, grading and convenience of supply, as well as by commercial propaganda of the most appropriate kind.
It should be in a position to collect and disseminate reliable, timely and practical market intelligence, which is of great importance in this particular field of our industry. It should encourage by every possible means better methods of production. It should have power to organize—and this is of considerable importance to the industry—suitable storage facilities as and when necessary, and to arrange for the economic utilisation of byproducts. It should be able to encourage the assembly, for transport in bulk when possible, of the product to be marketed, in order to diminish costs.
In all this work—and this is important when considering whether marketing schemes are right or not—it must be able to command first-class management and employ expert assistance. It is, after all, a feature of Marketing Boards that they can afford to do this, whereas it is peculiarly a feature of an industry of thousands of small people, as this one is, that producers themselves individually cannot afford to do so.
The powers which it is proposed to grant to this Board at the outset of the scheme are set out in paragraphs 68 and 69 of the scheme, of which I think hon. Members have a copy. These powers are purely regulatory in their scope. The Board may determine the descriptions of tomatoes and cucumbers which may be sold by registered producers and the terms on which they may be sold. They may maintain a list of persons to or through the agency of whom alone tomatoes and cucumbers may be sold. They may advertise, co-operate with any other person in grading, packing, storing, adapting for sale, insuring and transporting tomatoes and cucumbers. They may encourage, promote or conduct agricultural co-operation, research and education. They may encourage and promote the use of packing stations and standard grades. They may act as the agent or registered producers for the purpose of

the Horticultural Produce (Sales on Commission) Act, 1926. Finally, they may negotiate with any other person in any matter relating to the marketing of tomatoes and cucumbers.
Having stated the duties, there are certain features of these powers to which attention should be drawn. Section 5 (e) of the 1931 Act, as amended by the Third Schedule to the 1933 Act, enables a Board to take power to determine the persons to or through whom the regulated product may be sold. It was represented at the public inquiry, and has been represented in various quarters since, that this power would enable the Board to disturb the normal channels of distribution. We believe that there is no need at all to apprehend this, but in any case I draw the attention of hon. Members who may still have that point in mind to the fact that, under the 1949 Marketing Act, the Minister has ample powers to remedy, and indeed to prevent, any abuses under the scheme.
Nevertheless, the power has been drafted in such a way as to make it quite clear that the Board can only maintain a list of distributors on which any distributor will be able to require the Board to enter his name, and from which no one can be removed unless the Board are satisfied that he cannot do the job; and, in the event of the last declaration being made, there are three safeguards.
First, before anybody can be removed from the list, the Board must consult the Advisory Committee appointed under paragraph 29 of the scheme, and that Committee will include wholesalers, retailers and processors. Secondly, any person whom the Board proposes to strike off the list can require the Board to hear him. Thirdly, any person who thinks he is injured by an act of omission of the Board can complain to the Minister who can. under Section 9 of the 1931 Act, refer the complaint to the committee of investigation. Every producer will be free to consign his produce to any person he chooses whose name is on the Board's list.
Finally, there are three classes of sale which at this stage are exempt from control by the Board. They are sales to consumers direct, sales for use, for example, to caterers, and sales to retailers direct.Therefore, the Co-


operative movement, to mention one particular way in which it has been foreseen that there may be difficulty here, need have no fear that under this scheme they will be deprived of the right to consign the tomatoes they themselves produce to their own retail societies.
The House would think 1 was a little less than candid if I did not go on to examine the further powers that can be provided in certain circumstances under paragraph 70 of the scheme. Here, subject to the consent of the registered producers, to be obtained by a poll in the approved manner and subject again to my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland approving of their doing so in advance. the Board may be empowered to exercise certain further powers. Registered producers might then be required to sell tomatoes or cucumbers, or some part of the crop only, to the Board or through some agency of the Board. The Board would be authorised to determine the prices at which tomatoes and cucumbers may be sold by producers. The Board would be able to buy, sell, grade, pack, store, adapt for sale, insure and transport these products. They would be empowered to process tomatoes and cucumbers, and to trade in any commodities thus produced. They would be able to erect and operate packing stations, and to enforce standard methods of grading and marketing.
Before making any regulation with regard to price, the Board must notify not only the Minister responsible for the administration of the Act, but also the Minister of Food. There will always be an opportunity under these powers for any unwise decision of the Board to be vetoed by my right hon. Friend under the powers contained in Section 2 and Section 4 of the 1949 Act. If the Board are authorised to exercise any of the powers under this paragraph, they may find it necessary to cancel the exemption which paragraph 68 affords, and they are empowered to do so, but-and I want to draw the attention of the House to this pointthe Board will have no power to maintain a list of retailers to whom alone tomatoes and cucumbers may be sold, and, as I will show, the Board will not interfere with the normal channels of supplies to the consumer. The point I particularly want

to make here is that the Co-operative movement will still be free, even under this paragraph, to supply their own shops with tomatoes.
Before I sit down, may I say a word about the benefits which I regard as certain to flow from the adoption of this scheme? I am quite sure that it will prove of inestimable value to both producers and consumers. There is a fallacy, which I think one wants to get rid of once and for all, that either producers or consumers can gain under an anarchic system of marketing agricultural produce. I believe that to be wholly fallacious and wholly untrue. In fact, neither gains, and both are at the mercy of other elements in the channel of distribution. By collective action, producers will be able to enjoy common services which would have been beyond their means as individual producers.
Fresh discoveries in techniques can be brought home to a wider public of growers. Consumers will reap the benefit in produce of a higher quality, and at lower prices made possible by reduced costs of production. With more efficient and more intelligent marketing, there will be less risk, in particular, of that situation which has hitherto been so often in our minds as a feature of this industry. That was the situation in which there has been a dearth of tomatoes in one area and in another neighbouring area more tomatoes than the market there could absorb, and no way of bringing supply and demand together.
It may be alleged, of course, that some of the powers of the Board are restrictive, but "restrictive" is one of so many words that can be made to sound so harsh and which mean so little. The interests of the public will be amply safeguarded by the consumers' committees and the committees of investigation established under Section 9 of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, and the further powers given to my right hon. Friend by Sections 2 and 4 of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1949.
I do not accept the view that the scheme will infringe in any way upon the legal or other rights of any section of the trading community. I believe it to be an essential means by which we can give those sections of our industry the stability,


the basis of efficient production for cooperative marketing, which is so much needed if producers and workers in the industry, and the consumers of its products, are to have a fair chance. It is in that spirit that I commend the scheme to the House for approval.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. Baker White: It is proper that I should declare my interest in this matter. I am a grower both of tomatoes and cucumbers, though I am not a sufficiently large grower to come within the scheme, as it is drafted at present. I doubt whether I shall be at any time. Therefore, perhaps, I can look at the scheme without having any personal interest in it, but with some experience of the production side.
I believe that this scheme, the draft of which we have before us, is of great importance both to producers and consumers. I agree with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that for the producer it should mean greater stability, and for the consumer better quality. I am sure my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House give a general welcome to this scheme, because we also have been consistently in favour of grading and ordered marketing. The Conservative Party has declared itself plainly on this question on a number of occasions.
I want to make that point because, from time to time, it has been suggested from the back benches opposite that the Conservative Party is in favour of a sort of free-for-all for producers, with consumers getting the dirty end of the stick. In our statement of policy for British horticulture, in July, 1947, we said:
One of the main problems of the horticultural industry is marketing. An even distribution of the products of the industry is fundamentally necessary both in the interests of the efficiency of the industry itself and the satisfaction of public needs.
In the Agricultural Charter of 1948 we said:
We shall encourage growers to set up a comprehensive scheme to ensure proper efficiency in horticultural marketing and distribution, with the best possible service to the consumer.
We said the same thing in much the same words in 1949, and again in 1950.
There is obvious need for the scheme, because our consumption and production of tomatoes in this country is very considerable. The total acreage under tomatoes in 1949 was something over 5,700, of which over 3,300 were under glass. The total acreage of cucumbers, all under glass, was much smaller; it was 475.
As the Parliamentary Secretary said, we cannot from home produce satisfy anything like the whole need of the consumers. In 1949 we imported 4,693,000 cwt. of fresh tomatoes, another 965,000 cwt. in cans and 156,500 cwt. of tomato juice. Excluding altogether the Channel Islands from whom we obtained over £6 million worth of tomatoes last year. we spent in 1949 £16 million on buying tomatoes from abroad and a further £4,600,000 on canned tomatoes and fruit juice.
Our consumption of fresh, canned and puree tomatoes in 1949 was 181 lb. per head of the population, of which 15.3 lb. approximately was fresh tomatoes. It will be seen that it is of paramount importance to increase home production and home processing facilities. Obviously no scheme can be completely watertight, but there is one not very large hole which needs plugging if an adequate plug can be found. It concerns tomatoes mainly, and cucumbers to an unimportant degree only.
To qualify for the marketing scheme the producer must have, according to paragraph 41 (b), two or more units of production as defined in paragraph 5. There are a considerable number—I think some 7,000—commercial growers who have less than the requisite two units and whose produce will not be controlled by the Board. It is true that their acreage is small, but most of their production is outdoor tomatoes and so comes on to the market at the peak period. I feel that in certain districts the volume might be sufficient to upset the working of the Board, with markets temporarily flooded by uncontrolled and probably ungraded produce.
I put forward for consideration a possible and admittedly only partial solution. Many of these small growers sell their produce through growers' co-operatives. Might it not be possible to constitute the co-operative as the unit holder? A


growers' co-operative might hold 100 units covering 450 growers. This would bring their produce within the scope of the Board, and it would encourage growers to join co-operative organisations and form new ones. This would reduce grading and packing costs and so reduce the prices to the consumer. There may be some difficulty which I have not foreseen, but I would ask consideration to be given to this suggestion.

Mr. Coldrick: I am interested in the hon Gentleman's argument with regard to the small producer, but I should like to know whether there is anything at present which prevents the small grower from forming the kind of co-operative society which he envisages. Is there anything which prevents him doing that of his own accord?

Mr. White: No, Sir, nothing at all. But if the co-operatives became unit holders it would encourage this process even further.
I want to ask one question about Part III—the Register of Producers. It seems desirable to clarify the procedure whereby producers shall enter or leave the scheme. I will take the example of a grower known to me, to illustrate what I mean. In 1948 he had 800 tomato plants under glass, and about 3,000 plants in the open. In 1949 he had only 100 tomato plants under glass, and none at all in the open. This year he has 500 under glass and about 5,000 in the open. During that period he would have been eligible for inclusion in one year, out of it the next, and in it the next. With the inevitable good and bad seasons for outdoor tomatoes—1949 was a bad one—there is bound to be each year a number of growers going out of tomato production, or falling below the two-unit minimum, and new growers coming in. I would ask whether it is the intention of the Board to lay down a date for registration or de-registration under the scheme.
I should like to raise one small point concerning paragraph 29, section (2), and it is the appointment of advisory committees. I assume that, amongst the representation of consumer interests in the advisory committees, there will be representatives from, say, the Women's Institute or the W.V.S. and also repre-

sentatives of the catering organisations, who are very large purchasers of tomatoes and cucumbers. I feel that the views of housewives and caterers should be of value to the Board.
May I raise another small, but perhaps important point under paragraph 4—interpretations of expressions. It seems necessary to define more clearly what is meant by a glasshouse, because quite considerable quantities of tomatoes are produced nowadays under lights and large-sized cloches. Are they to be classed as glasshouses or not in determining the units of production? As the right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware, the statistical returns of tomatoes grown under glass do include those grown in frames and under cloches, and it seems desirable to have uniformity in this matter. If this point can be cleared up while the scheme is in draft it may save misunderstandings later.
I hope very much that the forthcoming ballot of producers will be very heavily in favour of this scheme. I am sure it is sound and necessary, and a useful contribution to the good health of horticulture. To be a success it must be linked with the fair and proper regulation of imports. The best scheme in the world will break down if the market is flooded at the wrong time with foreign produce. In framing this import policy we must take into special consideration the Channel Islands producers who send us about 1½ million cwt. of tomatoes per year.
I said at the beginning of my remarks that this scheme is of great importance. Tomato growing is an important part of the great horticultural industry. Although the acreage involved is comparatively small, the amount of capital sunk in tomato growing alone is calculated at £50 million. The factor, however, that makes this scheme so important is that if it proves a success—and there must be full co-operation to see that it is a success—then it will be possible to go ahead with other marketing schemes for other horticultural products—schemes that will be to the benefit of the producer and of the consumer as well.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Coldrick: In the first place, I should like to say that all of us are grateful to the Minister, who


has been responsible for certain modifications in the scheme originally presented by the National Farmers' Union, because as the scheme was originally designed, it was calculated to conform more to the kind of co-operation which is usually associated with Mussolini's regime than to the kind of organisations which we are accustomed to expect in this country.
Having regard to the fact that the Minister has effected those modifications, I appreciate some of the points made by the Parliamentary Secretary in indicating how kind the Department have been so far as the Co-operative movement is concerned. In this regard, like the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White), who indicated that he had some special interest, I should make it clear that, while I have no special interest, the Co-operative movement itself is one of the largest growers of tomatoes and cucumbers in this country. We differ from the National Farmers' Union in this way—we always prefer to do things ourselves rather than to come to the Minister and ask him to do them for us.
If we strip this scheme of all its verbiage and trappings, what it amounts to is this. It means that a group of people who feel incompetent to do things themselves, have come to the Minister and asked him to give them power to compel people to do the things they are otherwise unwilling to do. That is the fundamental objection I have, and the people associated with the Co-operative movement generally have, to the scheme put forward tonight.
I wonder what hon. Members on the other side would think if representatives of the Agricultural Workers' Union came to this House and suggested to the Minister that there were a number of refractory elements in that organisation who would not join the organisation and that the Minister should give the union power to compel them to become associated with the union? Would there not be terrific criticism in all quarters of the House that such compulsion should he applied? But is there anything worse about giving to the Agricultural Workers' Union the power to compel people to join that association, than there is in compelling people who grow tomatoes and cucumbers to be associated with an organisation of this kind if they do not

want to be associated with it? Therefore, the first thing I want to observe is, of course, that there is this compulsory element in the pattern of the proposal before us.
I want, secondly, to make it clear that we are all in favour of orderly marketing, and I feel that a scheme should be advanced far superior to anything contained in this draft Order at the present moment—one large-scale organisation doing precisely what this Order sets out to do. We have already created effective marketing, so far as the Co-operative movement is concerned, but unfortunately, of course, there are a large number of people who are not prepared to co-operate. What we suggest is that if there is to be orderly marketing, then a board should be set up, not representative of the producers only, with a producers' cartel being created, but a board composed of representatives of the producers, the distributors and the consumers. The Ministry would have representation. I think we should all feel agreed that it we had an independent board of that character, the general interest of the country would be observed.
Here we have a naked appeal to the Minister to set up a Board which will consist of 20 representatives chosen by the producers themselves. The Parliamentary Secretary, in an outburst of candour, imagines that this Board will set up an Advisory Committee; but what he does not make plain to the House is the fact that this Advisory Committee will consist of the whole of the members of the Board itself, and one or two other people who will be thrown into it in order to create a decorous facade to make us believe that it represents the public interest—

Mr. G. Brown: Nothing of the sort.

Mr. Coldrick: —while every child in politics knows that anybody who has any nefarious design does not come forward and tell people his intentions but tries to cloak them under the pretence that he is promoting the public interest. I submit that that is precisely what is happening in regard to this device that is now being adopted.

Mr. Brown: Will my hon. Friend allow me? He talks about my misleading the


House, or presenting to the House something illusory. Will he say where it is that he gets the notion that the Advisory Committee will consist of the Board? It is nonsense.

Mr. Coldrick: I believe it is in paragraph 29, but I will not trouble to trace it out. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] All right, then I will. It is paragraph 29, which says:
The Board shall set up and appoint an Advisory Committee which shall consist of members of the Board and of persons who, in the opinion of the Board, represent the views of wholesale and retail salesmen and processors of tomatoes and cucumbers.
It the Parliamentary Secretary can read anything into that other than what I have said, I am open to correction.

Mr. Brown: Certainly.

Mr. Coldrick: What I am indicating is that while we believe in orderly marketing and so forth, we, as consumers generally, have a strong resentment against a sectional body or a sectional interest being given statutory power to impose its will upon the rest of the community in this country.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Co-operative movement ought to be perfectly satisfied. Well, the Minister has been very accommodating in certain directions, because let there be no illusion about it, that when the scheme was originally drafted the intention was for this Board to enjoy the monopolistic and dictatorial power to say how all tomatoes should be sold in the market. It would have had the effect of making even the Co-operative Wholesale Society, as a big grower, sell the whole of its tomatoes and cucumbers to the Board and yet be denied the opportunity of selling to its own retail shops.
It is because of the pressure of opinion brought to bear through a public inquiry that the Minister has very graciously consented to remedy that. While we have that concession at the moment, I do not want my hon. Friends to imagine that we have the safeguards the Parliamentary Secretary implies. We discover that, while it is true that in the initial stages the Board will not be able to dictate who are the persons and agencies through which the tomatoes and cucumbers shall be sold, at a later stage if the

Board take a poll of these producers and get a two-thirds majority they can, with the consent of the Minister, take just those powers which are denied to them at the present moment.
I fear that a Minister who is prepared to confer upon a limited number of people the powers for which they are asking under this draft Order will be prepared to concede anything to them, if their pressure is such in the interests of producers who are going to fleece our public in the way they intend to fleece them. I utter this solemn warning, that it will be not merely the Lord President and the Minister of Food who will go on to the platform and ask the housewives to strike against high prices, but we shall mobilise all the strength we can in this country to protect consumers generally against ravages of this character.
Just imagine conferring upon a Board such as this the power to fine people, as is suggested in this draft. It will be observed that under the Order as it stands, if a person declines to do what the Board wants him to do the Board can fine him £100 and half the value of the tomatoes and cucumbers he sells. Sometimes the Minister of Food is pilloried in this House because he employes certain people to go into shops to ascertain whether people are charging more than the normal price, and those people are always referred to as "snoopers." If it is wrong for the Government to employ people to see whether legislation passed by this House is carried out, what is right about conferring upon the National Farmers' Union the power to send someone of their own organisation with the right of entry into a farmer's house, to ascertain whether he is storing tomatoes, preparing tomatoes, or preparing a sauce, or anything of that nature?

Mr. James Hudson: "Set the people free!"

Mr. Coldrick: It is an outrage against the people's sense of justice to confer upon a specialist interest in this country the power of entry and the power of fining suggested in this Order. They have not only power in that direction, but they even have power to fine if certain statistics are not supplied.
I sincerely hope that Members of this House will decline to pass an Order of this character without modification, which,


while it is calculated to benefit a very limited section of the community that is totally incompetent to organise its own industry, is so desgined as to plunder the public, as they always have been plundered under Marketing Acts of this kind.

10.26 p.m.

Lord Dunglass: I should like, first, to thank the hon. Member for Bristol, North East (Mr. Coldrick) for giving Members of our party so much free propaganda. I think that he will find his speech reprinted in a good many of our party pamphlets in the next few months. I would say this to him: if he feels so strongly about this, we hope that he will carry his convictions into the Lobby this evening.
I believe, however, that the hon. Member fears a number of bogeys which will not materialise. This procedure under the Marketing Acts is well known, and it has been applied in many cases between the wars. I do not recollect the case of any minority of producers who felt that they had been bulldozed by a majority vote. If the hon. Gentleman is so keen as he professes to be to see the price of tomatoes and cucumbers lower to the consumer, perhaps he will make recommendations to the National Coal Board to lower the price of coal, and to the Ministry of Transport to lower the price of transport, for these are the elements in the cost of production which are leading to the high price of vegetables and fruit.
I want this evening to raise only one point which was only touched upon briefly by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White). That is to ask the Minister if he will make a statement on the Government's intentions about imports in relation to this Marketing Act. He was, I think, in the House of Commons in 1931 when the Socialist Government brought in the first Marketing Act. Apart from the hop scheme, there was no marketing scheme brought in under the Marketing Act until there was effective control of imports.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I will say now, in an attempt to prevent other speakers following a similar trend, that this scheme has nothing to do with imports.

Lord Dunglass: The right hon. Gentleman had better come to my constituency and tell that to the producers. I am supporting the right hon. Gentleman. Let him be careful that he does not interrupt me too often.

Mr. Daines: Is the hon. Member aware that one of the reasons advanced by the National Farmers' Union for the need of this scheme was as follows:
It is claimed that competition from overseas needed regulation before the war and will need it again, and the home industry must be organised before a claim can he made for the control of imports"?
I offer that interruption, because it is complete confirmation of why the scheme is put forward as it is.

Lord Dunglass: Exactly, and I want to know from the Minister whether it is the Government's intention to control imports.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that imports come into the Order. I cannot see that they have anything to do with it at all. I must rule that out of order.

Lord Dunglass: There is to be in September, Mr. Speaker, another conference at Torquay at which this question of the regulation of the import of tomatoes will be settled. If a decision is taken at Torquay to allow increased imports of tomatoes, in my opinion this scheme will be wrecked. It is simply leading the producers up the garden path.

Mr. Speaker: That is all very well, but the ground that could be covered is very large. We must stick to this Order and not go beyond it into the question of imports. We are limited to the scheme outlined in the Order.

Lord Dunglass: Then I will limit myself to your Ruling, Sir. In general, this scheme has my support and the support of hon. Members on this side, although we have great anxiety on the point I have tried to mention and which you have ruled out of order.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. James Hudson: The scheme that has been put forward arises not only from the demand of the National Farmers' Union, which has been explained to us, but also from the general


trend of legislation under the Labour Government and previous Governments to control prices and guarantee to producers a regular market. This Order, up to a point, may be a praiseworthy effort to carry out this intention. I do not suppose you would allow me to argue whether it is a good intention or a bad intention, Sir, but at any rate it was the intention of the legislation that was passed to make possible the creation of precisely such schemes as the Minister of Agriculture now brings before the House for our consideration.
Admitting all that, it is still necessary to say that a Labour Government, which must be expected to have taken a carefully balanced view as between producers and consumers, have entirely failed to provide for the consumers the protection they can rightly claim. In my view, it is nonsense to talk about consumers' representation when, out of the 20 members of the tomato and cucumbers producers' board, only four are representatives of the consumers. Further, when we come to look at these four members, we find they are not necessarily put forward by the consumers' organisations; they are more likely to be the nominees of the Ministry of Agriculture.
I do not wish to continue to discuss this matter without declaring that I have an interest. I am a member of a co-operative society with a very strictly restricted investment provided for by law, which does not carry my interests very far, but they are there. I also have an interest as a grower. I have seven tomato plants. They are coming along very nicely at the moment and they will be used to save me from the pressure of the producers in matters of price to the extent that seven plants will produce tomatoes. It is because the organised consumers' movements exist to protect the consumers adequately against the pressure of the producers that we complain about the ineffectiveness of the arrangements now made for consumers' representation.
I agree with the Minister that he has made genuine efforts to improve considerably the scheme now before us, compared with that which was first offered by the National Farmers' Union. He has, for example, made it clear that all those who hope to secure tomatoes in future shall be on the list of those suppliers. I

am not sure that even that will secure the aim he apparently has in view, because, for example, if a consumers' society desires to obtain a consignment of tomatoes from a horticultural company producing them, and that company has no ideas about co-operation similar to those held by private traders in so many other departments, it is not at all unlikely that those who have got tomatoes to sell will prefer to have them sold not by co-operative societies but by private distributing agencies. There is no guarantee, even when the Minister has protected the main supplying firm, that the private producers will carry out his intentions.
This is one of the many criticisms to be advanced, but my main criticism remains, and it is that this is still a great producer organisation that the Minister has built up; it may do good work in that capacity, work that it is worth while our supporting, but it does not give, as a scheme, that guarantee to the Labour movement, which has been carrying on a great propaganda about this for the last few years, that adequacy of representation in the detailed management which it wishes to claim.
I will not carry this matter to a Division—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—because there is a job being accomplished so far as the producers are concerned, and I want that job to be done. I am not only saying that the Minister has stopped short at the effective point, but I cannot understand why the party opposite, that has had so much to say about setting the people free and the protection of trade through consumers and ending all the processing of regulating the development of the power of central control, does not carry this matter to a Division. I hope that as the scheme goes forward the Minister will give more attention to the claims the Co-operative movement have made, and that there will be considerable modification of the present proposal.

Captain Duncan: I am in a little difficulty in declaring my interest in this as I have not counted my tomato plants, and I do not know whether I have 999 or 1.000 or whether I come into the scheme. However. I wish to declare that I have tomato plants, and more than the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson). I would like to say a few words about the speech


of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Coldrick). He has made a most remarkable speech, which will be read by every grower, and every person interested in agriculture, with the greatest of interest. It is almost as good as a seller as the speech made some months ago by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans). The interesting thing about the speech was that, although it criticised this scheme, it was, in fact, critical of the 1949 Marketing Act passed by a Labour Government, and the 1931 Act also passed by a Labour Government.

Mr. Coldrick: I criticised those Measures at the time, so I am being perfectly consistent.

Captain Duncan: I was not in the House in 1931 or 1949, so I am not prepared to argue the point; but the fact is that Members opposite passed these Acts and the hon. Member has spent the whole of his speech criticising them and not the scheme. Members opposite talk about prices and say that the Co-operative Movement does not believe in this sort of thing, but want to give a lead by growing their own produce. Let them give a lead now. Why do they not do it by reducing prices? It would be very much more honest if the Co-operative Movement, instead of talking about a reduction in prices, now reduced their prices to the consumer.
It would be of great interest to the people of the country if they could be here tonight and see, for a change, the serried ranks of Members opposite to support the hon. Member in his efforts to damp down this scheme. This scheme is admittedly an experiment. There have been other marketing boards set up, but none before for horticultural production. I think it will be of great interest to watch how the scheme goes, because, as Members have already said, it may be a model for future horticultural marketing schemes.
Therefore, we want to be very careful that it is a success. It can only be a success if the effect of it is to improve the marketing of the article concerned, to increase efficiency and to maintain a profit for the grower. If it satisfies these three tests, the scheme deserves the support of the growers when they come to have polls in the future. As has been

said, £50 million is involved, a large amount of which is put up by small people, people of the class about which Members opposite are always talking. I believe that if this scheme goes through it will deserve well of the country, of the industry and of the consumer.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. Crosland: I am glad that we have had this protest from this side of the House tonight. I should like to support it, although from a rather different point of view, since I do not have a Co-op. interest or grow tomatoes. It is a very sad thing that we should have had a scheme of this kind from a Labour Government. I do not agree that the scheme was implicit in the 1949 Act. That Act certainly gave permission for this draft scheme to be put forward, but there was nothing in it which laid down, in this sort of detail, the kind of scheme being put forward tonight here. Therefore, it is consistent for us to criticise the details of this scheme, as such details are not explicit in the Act of last year.
It is a sad thing that we should have a scheme from a Labour Government which sets up what is a producers' monopoly, with full power over prices, over output, and over new entry into the industry. It certainly seems to me to be a sad thing, although I can see some arguments in favour of the scheme. But a scheme like this is giving full monopoly powers to a private body of producers. I would not have been surprised if a scheme of this sort had been put forward by the other side of the House and been opposed from this side. It is the other side of the House which has consistently supported, for example, retail price maintenance, and which was responsible for agricultural marketing Acts before the war. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The Labour Party were responsible for one Agricultural Marketing Act, in 1931, which was admittedly an interim Act, and was the beginning of that helpful policy which the party had not time to put into full operation because it was thrown out.
That a scheme such as this comes from this side of the House is a great surprise. It goes counter to what I thought was becoming general thinking about agricultural and horticultural marketing generally. I would like to quote a few remarks


from what is probably the most authoritative study ever published in this country -the well-known study by Lord Astor and Seebohm Rowntree, and the experts associated with them.

Mr. Speaker: We have to devote our selves fairly closely to cucumbers and tomatoes, under the Order. The general throwing of party thrusts across the Floor of the House is not very opportune at this moment.

Mr. Crosland: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I had no intention of going too wide. I wanted to show that this scheme is running counter to what I thought was the increasingly agreed view we had about agricultural marketing. In view of your Ruling, I will leave that point and pass back to rather more detailed points about this scheme.
At the cost of running into trouble, I think it is important to ask what is the motive behind this scheme, because it is evidently a restrictive motive. No one pretends that the National Farmers' Union, or the tomato growers, or anyone else, want these powers over prices or output to be brought into operation today. If this scheme goes through we shall not have a scheme for the control of prices and output brought into operation this year or next year. It is evident that this scheme is wanted as a protection against the day when there may be conditions of greater over-supply, as the producers think, than there are at the moment.
It is clear, I think, from the last two speeches, and from all the speeches of hon. Members opposite, that the general thought behind the scheme is an attempt by the producers to organise themselves, as they think, in a satisfactory way, into a coherent body like this, so that their claim for the control and restriction of imports of tomatoes will be stronger.

Mr. Speaker: The import of tomatoes is out of order on this Order. I pulled up the noble Lord the Member for Lanark (Lord Dunglass) on that point. We cannot discuss imports.

Mr. Crosland: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I had no intention of challenging your Ruling.
I think it is particularly unfortunate that this scheme has been produced at this moment, because we have had, during the last two or three years, the Lucas Report and a great deal of general discussion about the future of agricultural marketing. I think it is wrong that we should anticipate a lot of decisions which might have been taken on the basis of that Report by bringing in, prematurely, a detailed scheme of this kind.
The Government's answer to all the criticism is that even if one is giving the producers the power over prices and output, it does not matter because the Government are always there in the background. This is not a very convincing protection for the consumer at all. If the Government envisage that the industry is always to put forward schemes so innocuous that the Minister will always approve them, that is one thing; but if the Minister envisages the producers frequently putting forward schemes so restrictive that even the Ministry of Agriculture would object, then it would have been better not to have set up a producers' body in the first place, but a body nominated by the Minister.
If the Government take the view that, while we have the present Minister and the present Parliamentary Secretary in their offices, everything is all right, I would remind them that we must face the realities of the future. It is a regrettable fact that we cannot regard them as permanent safeguards for the consumer and that, when we have a Tory Minister of Agriculture and a Tory Parliamentary Secretary, we may have a very much more restrictive scheme.
The last point which I make about the safeguarding of the consumer is this: if we set up a producers' marketing scheme of this sort it clearly strengthens the bargaining position of the industry against the Ministry. Quite obviously, the producers will have a far stronger chance of imposing their views on the Minister. I would end by again relating this particular scheme to a more general point. It seems to me the sort of scheme which might have been in place 15 years ago. The Marketing Acts before the war had a certain justification in the then prevailing economic conditions. If this had been produced 15 years ago we on this side of the House would have given it more


sympathetic consideration because then one had low prices and falling markets; but in days of full employment and expanding markets and demand, it seems to me to be wrongly conceived. There might have been a place for it in prewar days, but it is decidedly out of place with expanding demand, and it is for that reason that I voice this disquiet.

10.54 p.m.

Brigadier Peto: While the Parliamentary Secretary was making his speech in opening the Debate, I asked whether he could give an assurance that this scheme would reduce costs to the public. He said that he would deal with that at a later stage but, so far as I have been able to follow him, other than saying that four out of the 20 were to be consumers, or representatives of consumers he has not dealt with that point at all. It is a point of substance, and I would ask the Minister, if he is to reply, whether he would say if this scheme, although it assists the producers, also guarantees a reduction in cost.
The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Crosland), rather like the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Coldrick), who is now leaving the Chamber, made speeches of extraordinary political interest and I will not follow them in them because I feel that they have already exposed the feelings of a very large section of their own party. The interest to me is, first, that the producer, as a result of this scheme, should have better marketing and, second, but equally important, that the consumer should have cheaper produce.
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that possibly the objections from the consumers' point of view might be met if a larger proportion than four were included on the Marketing Board. I believe that would probably meet many of the feelings, at any rate, some of us have got and, I think, one of the most important things that we have now to face, and are facing, is the continual rise in costs of every commodity that is to be bought on the markets. Anything that can be done to guarantee a reduction in price and costs, provided that it is not detrimental to the producer, by cutting out the intermediate stages would be to the advantage of the community as a whole.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. Dye: I am not interested in this matter as a grower of tomatoes, not even of seven plants, but I am interested personally in tomatoes because I like them for breakfast, dinner, tea, and supper. Therefore, my principal interest is as a consumer, but I am also directly interested in agricultural production as such. During my life-time, I have seen the producers of agricultural products in this country suffer severely through the lack of the kind of organisation which it is intended to set up under this Order. Because I have seen that suffering, I am going to support the Order this evening and I hope the House will give it its unanimous support, too.
The very kind of argument that was used by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), was used precisely 20 years ago against the Addison Marketing Act. That is a great pity, because I thought we had made progress. I can understand in some way the opposition of the Co-operative Members of Parliament and of the C.W.S. against this, because they say we are not going to give the consumers representation on the Board.
What is the principal element of this scheme? It is that the producers of tomatoes shall be banded together for the better production and sale up to the wholesale stage of tomatoes. The whole of the capital involved will come from the producers. If we are to evolve a scheme that included the production of tomatoes and the retail sale of tomatoes, then there would be grounds for complete equality of representation on the Board.
But the Marketing Acts do not provide for that and neither do the co-operatives or consumers want it. Quite clearly, what is envisaged is that both sides of the industry—the producer and the distributing—should be organised, but not in the same Board. There must be negotiations, however, between the producing side and the distributing side in the fixing of prices and therefore, it seems to me that their argument completely falls to the ground that we can expect to establish a marketing board that provides for equal representation of consumers on it.
There has been criticism of the powers that the Board would possess, but there are no more powers in this scheme than there are to be found in the co-operative


schemes in Denmark or any other country for the production of butter or bacon or anything else. The purpose of the powers is to ensure that the producers as such will produce the quality that the consumers are wanting and unless the Board have those powers we might as well not have the Board. Quite clearly, without this organisation for tomatoes and cucumbers, and similar organisations for other commodities, we cannot prevent the widening spread of greater differences between the prices which the producers are being paid and what the consumers have to pay. Today there is a wider difference than before the war between the producers' price and what the consumers pay.
If the producers, on their side, are endeavouring to build up the kind of organisation that will enable us to limit that, then why describe it as a "restrictive" scheme? The scheme is not restrictive any more than the Milk Marketing Board has been restrictive. Where would the country have been without the Milk Marketing Board all during the war? Where would the increase of production and of quality have come without the organisation of the Milk Marketing Board?
We cannot ensure the continued expansion of tomato-growing in this country without this kind of scheme because we must have production units of an economic character; they must have stability and they must be linked up with organisations. It is no good, at this stage, saying that this scheme will not assist the people of this country eventually to obtain more and better tomatoes, no doubt at cheaper prices. That is what can happen. Without it we can have high prices and low prices and in the variations that take place neither the consumer nor the producer will get the advantage but the people in between, and that is what we must avoid.
I hope that my hon. Friends will bear in mind the broad principles by which our party have stood in their approach to the agricultural and horticultural industries, and will view the past from the point of view of those who have lived and worked in these industries. Those people have been exploited and have had a very thin living, and today they are as much entitled to as good a living as any other section in the country.
We do not turn round and say, "We want cheap textiles from Japan or anywhere else." We are not asking for cheap imports of the things of which we are consumers. We are quite desirous of giving to the people who produce the things that we consume a fair price, and we are only asking that the producers of tomatoes and cucumbers should have the same right. They have not got it today because the industry cannot be organised to prevent the very big fall in prices that will mean great loss to the producers of tomatoes this very year.
The planned development of the tomato industry in such a way as to ensure from home production a greater flow does, therefore, require the kind of machinery that has been thought out here. It has been over two years in incubation. It has been pulled about from every side. The Minister has done his best to harmonize the interests of the growers with the interests of the consumers, and those growers who want to supply consumers direct or even retailers, so that there should be no particular hardship. I therefore ask hon. Members on this side of the House to think of the million or more who work in British agriculture, to see that they have a fair deal, to recognise that this scheme is best, and let it go forward.

11.6 p.m.

Mr. Percy Daines: I suppose that I ought to apologise to the House for speaking at this late hour, but I must say that important Orders of this sort, and they are very important, ought not to be taken at this time of night. We may as well understand quite clearly that this Order is the first of a series that will have a very far-reaching effect on the economy of this country.
The facts about the make-up of this vast grouping of small consumers are these—and I took the trouble to get the information from the Ministry of Agriculture. The total acreage of glasshouses in the last published figures was 3,155. Holdings of less than a quarter of an acre comprises 83.1 per cent. of the total number of growers, and represented 22.5 per cent. of the total acreage. Holdings of less than one-eighth of an acre comprised 17.3 of the total number of growers, and 12.7 per cent. of the total acreage. That is a complete refutation not only of his point, but also of the


main plea of the National Farmers Union. This industry, in fact, has a very large acreage in very few hands, as well as a large number of small producers, and it is false to plead tonight that this is an issue affecting only small producers.
There are a few other essential facts which should be in the possession of the House. The pre-war consumption of tomatoes was 250,000 tons, one-third coming from the Canary Isles, one-third coming from the Channel Islands and Holland, and one-third from home producers. As a result of the war, when we could not get tomatoes from abroad, home production was substantially stepped up and demand increased. Even now, we have reached the point where only 50 per cent. of the total consumed is home-produced.
Mr. Speaker has ruled that it would be wrong to refer to imports, and I defer to that Ruling, but I must call the attention of the House, and I hope I am in order, to the fact that if only 50 per cent. of the tomatoes consumed in this country are home-produced the remainder must come from somewhere. If hon. Gentlemen are interested in the motives behind this scheme I would refer them to the point quite rightly made by the noble Lord the Member for Lanark (Lord Dunglass) following an intervention I made.
The Parliamentary Secretary had great difficulty tonight in containing himself when my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Coldrick) dealt with paragraph 29. It is just funny to call this an advisory committee. Here is a board of 20 producers, four of whom are chosen by the Ministry. Mathematically the producers predominate. They choose the Advisory Committee. It is just funny; it is certainly not serious politics to bring forward arguments in favour of that proposition.
I must speak to the Order, as Mr. Speaker has ruled, but I am reminded of the other night when we stayed here two hours while hon. Members opposite were having a lovely time in the Debate on the 1951 census. We have no comment from them tonight because new agricultural courts are being set up with far-reaching powers. At present a uniformed policemen has to go to the magistrates to get a search warrant, but if this Order is passed, an official of the Ministry of Agriculture can go anywhere he thinks

tomatoes or cucumbers are being produced.
Let me refer to another point. I want to speak to some of my hon. Friends in the Liberal Party, who are generally bursting to have a go for freedom. In the Third Schedule it states:
If you wilfully misstate the number of units of production which you are asked to state above, you will render yourself liable to imprisonment or a fine or both.
We are entitled to know from the Minister where the legal sanction is; I do not doubt there is one, but the House could never have realised what it was doing when it gave a legal sanction of that sort.

Mr. Turton: It it is in the Agricultural Marketing Act, for which the hon. Member and his hon. Friends voted.

Mr. Daines: It is not difficult to understand the hon. Members voting for it, but I think it was a wrong thing to do.

Mr. Turton: The hon. Member was a Member of the Standing Committee which considered that Bill, and he voted for that particular provision.

Mr. Daines: That, I frankly confess, is news to me. I will certainly look up the point, but I do not accept that I was present when the provision was actually before the Committee. The point certainly does not worry me unduly. It is quite easy for an hon. Member to make an assertion like that, but it should not be accepted unless there is chapter and verse for it. If there is chapter and verse I will apologise to him, but for the moment I do not accept it.
Let us look at paragraph 70 (b). The Minister may concede powers to the Board to determine the highest or lowest price, but, having given those powers, the Board proceeds to exercise them, and all that is required is that they shall notify the Minister or the Minister of Food.

Mr. Turton: I have the Report of the Standing Committee here. I find that the hon. Member was not on the Standing Committee, and I wish to withdraw and apologise.

Mr. Daines: That, of course, was a form of political amnesia from which the hon. Member suffered. What interests me is the political schizophrenia which has begun to show itself among hon. Members,


who one moment are crying for protection and the next for the opposite. I do not mind that, but what appals me is that my own Front Bench, three weeks ago, supported me, on these very principles, on price resale maintenance, but, tonight, takes the opposite view against the needs of the consumers. It is no use the Labour Party coming forward with schemes for efficient retail distribution if we concede this point tonight. By doing so we are giving power to the producer and a whole sequence of marketing orders will follow in the same way. The Minister knows it. It will be impossible for the Minister of Food or the Labour Party to come forward with schemes of efficient distribution if we have already surrendered the main citadel by passing this Order.

11.16 p.m.

Mr. Baldwin: I am aware that the Minister of Agriculture was somewhat disappointed at the results of the last election in the rural areas. I think he has had the justification now. No matter what we may think of the Minister and his colleagues, we know the opinions of the back bench Members of the Socialist Party. I am much obliged for what they have given me in this Debate. I have often been indebted to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Coldrick) for what he said in the last Parliament. I shall have much pleasure in quoting what he says in this one.
There was only one realistic speech from the other side and that was from the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye), who happens to be a primary producer. I wish that hon. Members who criticise this Order had to earn their living as primary producers. Then I am sure they would take a different attitude. I am not a horticulturist to any large extent, but I pass through a district of small horticultural producers twice a week. No matter how early in the morning or how late at night I pass through this district, these men, women and children are working in the fields in order to get food fresh and cheap to the consumers.
I think it is entirely wrong for hon. Members who have no experience of primary production to condemn this scheme. They are doing the consumers harm. This scheme was evolved to

reduce the costs between producer and consumer and it is wrong for hon. Members to describe this as a cartel or mono poly. How can this scheme be a monopoly when we have just heard from the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines) that 50 per cent. of the tomatoes consumed come from abroad? How can there be any monopoly?

Mr. Daines: If the hon. Member will read the opening passages of the Debate, he will see that I made the point clear. While only 50 per cent. of home consumption is met by home production, the real purpose behind this Order is to get control of imports.

Mr. Baldwin: Because of Mr. Speaker's Ruling, I cannot talk about imports. I should have liked to develop that matter, but if I may, I would say this, that we hear plenty of squeaks from the industrialists and their workers about competition from Japan and Germany, but when the primary producers raise that point, it is entirely a different matter. All we want is fair play, and we ask for nothing more.
The effect of this scheme is that produce will be marketed in an orderly manner. It will do away with the slumps and high prices that have alternated in the past. If the consumers like to reckon up the average throughout the years, they will find that the effect of high prices and slumps is that they pay more on an average for the produce they are consuming than they ought to do. If we can market our produce in an orderly manner, we can avoid that. The effect of a high price is that it brings a lot of producers into production. When there is a slump out they go, and there is a return of high prices. We want to avoid that, and the Minister has, in this scheme, put forward something which will do it.
We have heard about the harm which will result from this scheme, but there is the illustration of the two schemes which have been mentioned tonight. There is the Hops Marketing Scheme which is a successful one: the consumers, the brewers, have never complained about it.

Mr. J. Hudson: Hear, hear.

Mr. Baldwin: I know the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) will be pleased to hear this, but it does mean that hops can be produced in this


country at a level price for the brewers. We want to do it in this industry. We want a fair deal, not only for ourselves will be interested to read what hon. Gentlemen opposite have said about this scheme. Hon. Gentelmen oppisite can rest assured that farm workers are not as dull as they are thought to be and can think things out. I hope that, in spite of the criticism that has been made, the House will pass this scheme. It can never be a monopoly. If the Co-oprative societies, whose members have any marketing troubles they can buy from abroad as they are entitled to do. I have, never yet, in my passage through towns where Co-operative societies flourish, seen that they have put tomatoes or cucumbers on the market any more cheaply: what has been said tonight is a lot of nonsense, and I hope the House will pass the scheme without any more ado.

11.22 p.m.

Mrs. Castle: The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) and a number of other hon. Gentlemen opposite have made great play about the electoral advantage which they hope will accrue to them because of some of the speeches made by some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House. Are hon. Gentlemen opposite quite sure their own speeches are not going to prove a considerable liability to them at the next General Election?
It is quite remarkable that, although we are discussing a commodity which has considerable health-giving properties, and which adds enormously to the variety of diet in the ordinary homes throughout the country, a plentitude of which in the larders of the housewives is vital to the health and well-being of the consumers, we have not had an atom of an expression of concern by hon. Gentlemen opposite about the effect of the Order and whether it is going to be detrimental to the interests of the consumers and the housewives. I suggest that everything we have heard from hon. Gentlemen opposite proves once again how they are ready to jettison lightheartedly the interests of the consumers when any sectional claim is before the House. They have established tonight once and for all that they are the last

party in the country to have any claim to represent the housewives of Britain.
When speaking here tonight—and I speak with some anxiety about the effects of this Order—I fully appreciate that the genuine interests of the consumer must be linked with the genuine interests of the producers and that there should not be a clash. It is not in a spirit of clash that I criticise this Order. I appreciate fully the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye). I agree that this Order is an advance on the pre-war situation. I am delighted to find that there is at last recognition on the other side that the free play of the market ruins the grower on the one hand without benefiting the consumer on the other.
We have seen thrown overboard the last discredited tatters of the policy of "Set the People Free." There is only one Member who still believes that there is a necessity for that policy, and he is the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), because he never had any understanding of domestic or economic affairs. I quite agree that in that prewar system we had the worst of both worlds. When my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West, says that the growers have a right to this, it is rather misrepresenting the situation. It is not that the growers have been clamouring for the right to organise. The difficulty has been to try to convince the growers of the value of organisation.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Does the hon. Lady realise that the scheme has been in the Ministry for two years and the growers have been waiting all that time?

Mrs. Castle: I am sure that the hon. Member knows that the N.F.U. has had an enormous amount of difficulty with the backwoods growers to get them to agree even to this form of organisation.
I welcome this step forward. I wish there had been more organisation. There would have been less difficulty for the housewife if there had been more producer co-operatives and a more rationalised system. One of the difficulties the housewife has been suffering from is the lack of marketing intelligence, which has led growers one year, when there is a good price for a certain vegetable, to rush in and grow it without any consultation, with


the result that the bottom falls out of the market the next year and they all stop growing it, with the result that there is a famine for the housewife.
I quite agree that there must be some order and regulation brought into this industry. I am not opposing this Order or criticising it because I want to go back to the pre-war chaos. I believe that the regulation of private enterprise is a necessity. I am glad that hon. Members opposite now agree about that. I am asking the question: Regulation in whose interest? That is my concern when I look at this Order. We have to be very careful, when we do go forward to try to bring order out of chaos by regulation, to try to strike a fair and legitimate balance between the producer, on the one hand, and the consumer, on the other.
I want to see a grand liaison between the two. I want to see closer consultation between the two and understanding of each other's problem. I think that these suspicions, prejudices and hostilities would then go. I suggest that in this scheme we have not got that proper balance, but a form of producer syndicalism. What we were discussing 20 years ago is not relevant because our ideas progress as our experience progresses. It is not good enough that once more we should have a scheme brought before the House under which the consumer is the residuary legatee of any advantages.
I appreciate that the Marketing Act which we discussed last year was a step in the right direction towards the modification of the pre-war scheme, but it did not go far enough to meet our point of view. I should like to quote an extract from the "British Farmer," which is the official organ of the N.F.U. It says:
Thanks largely to the initiative of the National Farmers' Union, the Agricultural Marketing Acts, 1931 and 1933, have been preserved virtually intact on the Statute Book, and the Amending Act of 1949. without impairing the essential features of producer control, has given Parliamentary confirmation to the maintenance of the system of producer-control marketing in the post-war period.
I suggest that that is not a situation which is satisfactory, from the point of view of the grower or from the point of view of the housewife.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I do not know whether the hon. Member is criticizing

an Act of Parliament. If she is, then she is out of order.

Mrs. Castle: I am criticising this scheme as giving a producer-controlled marketing scheme, and I am saying that because it is a producer-controlled marketing scheme, it cannot fulfil its ostensible purpose of rationalising the marketing of this horticultural produce in the interest of the whole community. From the point of view of the grower, what is the value of having a marketing scheme which may improve by grading and packing and regulation of the produce, and then handing over the produce to the very distributive system which is causing the waste and the expensiveness of the product when it reaches the housewife?
This scheme does not seek to remedy one of the most important factors existing at the moment. It does nothing to remedy the situation of too many middlemen handling the products, sending up the price, and getting the products into the hands of the housewife stale and expensive. While it does not remedy these things it is not helping the grower, because it is to the advantage of the grower that we should close the gap between the price which the producer gets and the price which the housewife has to pay for it. Day after day we have brought forward in this House examples of growers not getting proper prices, having to abandon their crops, whether of strawberries or other things, and yet we housewives know that the prices demanded in the shops are such that we have to cut down our demand by half.
I want seriously to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that it is to the interest of the growers as much as anyone else that this scheme should be recognised as inadequate, and that one can only solve this problem and close the gap between grower and housewife by a scheme which recognises that, in horticulture and in the tomato industry, growing, distribution and retailing are all one industry and must be discussed together. That can only be done by a board which represents all these interests and which does far more than this scheme to bring them into effective consultation. The note we should strike is one of expansion. We should turn our backs on any idea of restriction and higher prices.

11.33 p.m.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I am driven to the reluctant conclusion that late hours do not suit the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle). [Interruption.] I am asked why.

Mr. Snow: I did not ask that. I said "Nonsense."

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am sorry if I attributed to the hon. Member more courtesy and more intelligence than I ought to have done. I must say there was very little excuse for my making that mistake in his case. But I will answer the question, which I thought the hon. Member asked, why late hours do not suit the hon. Member for Blackburn, East. I do not mind her seeking to have the best of both worlds in her argument because no doubt she could claim that that is the privilege of her sex. But there was a querulous note which I was sorry to observe in her contribution to this discussion.
I am bound to say that, having listened to all the speeches made by hon. Members opposite, I am driven to the conclusion that the popularity of Ministers with those who support them, or at any rate nominally support them, is an inverse proportion to the constructive efficiency which they bring to their Departmental duties. I do not think, however, that they need worry very much, because there is a notable lack both of consistency and of courage in the speeches of hon. Members opposite tonight. The hon, Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines), who I regret is no longer with us, posed as the friend and champion of the little man. The hon. Member for Blackburn, East criticised the scheme because, she said, it did not suppress sufficiently the small producer. Then we had the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) and the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Crosland). The latter said that what he would have expected was that a scheme such as this would have been put forward from this side of the House, but the hon. Member for Ealing, North, told us that what he expected was that we on this side would have voted against this scheme, although he did not intend to do so.
That brings me to the issue of courage. I have listened to a great many debates in this House, but the fact that hon.

Members are not going to follow their voices with their votes tonight shows a remarkable lack of consistency. We shall look with interest to the action of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is going a little beyond the Order.

Mr. Walker-Smith: On that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and with great respect, I would say that if hon. Members are in order in making certain speeches and certain comments and in putting forward certain points of view, how can it be that I am not in order in referring to them?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We are here discussing an Order, and the hon. Member's speech is going rather wide of it.

Mr. Walker-Smith: With great respect, Sir, you were not in the Chair when we started, and I am commenting on speeches which had been made before you came in; that, I believe, is known in Parliamentary language as the cut and thrust of debate.

Mr. J. Hudson: On a point of order. As you have allowed the hon. Member opposite to refer to my courage, or lack of it, in the matter of what I proclaimed to be my duty, will you now permit him to declare himself, seeing that he has the courage necessary to say what he is going to do about it?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There is no point of order there, but on the previous point of order, I am advised that Mr. Speaker did speak about hon. Members carrying on in this way.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am asked by the hon. Member opposite what is my view; that will become apparent even to the hon. Member for Ealing, North. It is quite wrong that hon. Members should be willing to wound but afraid to strike. The attitude of the critics of the scheme does contain some very surprising aspects indeed. In the first place, it shows that they are willing to pass Agricultural Marketing Acts which are intended, among other things, to promote schemes, but that they are not willing that those schemes should be put into operation. In other words, they are content to pass legislation so long as it is sterile legislation.

Mr. Dye: Mr. Dye rose—

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Member has made his own speech without interruption, and perhaps he will allow me to develop my argument.
So far as the criticisms are concerned, every critic, except the hon. Member for Blackburn, East, attacked this scheme because it was seeking to introduce a certain degree of regulation into this industry; but surely that is quite contrary to the argument normally put forward by hon. Members opposite. If private enterprise seeks to remain on a purely individualistic and unorganised basis, it is condemned for clinging to the economics of the jungle. When it seeks to put forward a scheme for the better regulation of this industry, it appears that it is equally condemned by hon. Members opposite. I suggest that that is an inconsistent point of view. I suggest, too, that the great tenderness which has been developed by some of the critics of this scheme tonight, in regard to consumers, could perhaps have been shown at the time when this House was passing into law the Acts which have brought about State monopoly in so many of our basic industries.
I submit that there is at least as much protection, and more protection, in this scheme for consumer interests than in the shadowy consumers' consultative councils which are the only thing that protects consumers in the great basic industries of this country. The scheme has been attacked also on grounds of monopoly. Surely the figures show that is not so. There are approximately 14,000 growers in this country, of whom only about 6,600 come within the scheme. It is true they are the bigger growers who come within the scheme and, it is quite true, as the hon. Member for East Ham, North, discovered, in the course of his speech, that the bigger growers grow the most produce; but surely it would be a great failure of planning if the big people were not in the organised scheme and the little ones were left out.
But these figures show conclusively that there can be no justification for the charge of monopoly in this scheme. The criticisms made by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South, in regard to the danger that might come from setting up a board with powers such as these, are exactly the sort of criticisms which an hon. Member with his point of view
might have made regarding the inception of the Milk Marketing Board. Time, however, has shown that such criticisms in the case of the Milk Marketing Board would have been wholly unjustified, and I venture to prophesy that if we can look ahead to the time when this scheme has been operating as long as the Milk Marketing Board, the criticism of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South, would appear equally unjustified.
The hon. Member for East Ham, North, made what I think was a very unfair, or at any rate an unkind, observation in regard to the effect of the war in increasing tomato production in this country. He did not explain that this was partly due to the fact that a lot of these growers-and a lot in my own constituency in the Lea Valley-who were growing flowers before the war, had, of course, to turn to food production. I never expected to have that levelled against them as a charge in this House. I should have thought it was a patriotic duty and one which has done a great service to the people of this country.
May I make this final point, as it has been suggested by hon. Members opposite than we on this side of the House have shown insufficient consideration for the point of view of the consumer? That is not so. The consumer wants to have a steady supply of these commodities and, of course, wants them at as reasonable a cost as possible. I submit that this scheme will enable them to have a greater consistency of supply of these commodities for the home market I do not believe that this scheme will raise costs. I hope it will have a steadying effect on costs.
If hon. Members opposite really want to see costs reduced in the growing of these commodities, I will tell them how that can be achieved. There are two factors which mainly contribute to costs—fuel and transport. It is exactly the same as with bricks. A Socialist noble Lord, in another place the other day, pointed out that the high cost of bricks was due to the cost of coal and transport. Precisely the same is true of these commodities we are now considering. It is the cost of coal and transport—nationalised industries—which tends to keep prices—

Mrs. Castle: As the hon. Member is claiming that transport is costly, would it not be commonsense to reduce some of the unnecessary journeys in the horticultural industry owing to the chaotic system of distribution?

Mr. Speaker: We have had enough of coal and transport. Let us keep to cucumbers and tomatoes.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Hon. Members on this side have got just as real a consideration for the interests of the consumer, together with a greater grasp of what is really required in order that these needs can be met.
I do not say that this scheme is perfect in every detail—it would be a very unusual scheme if it were—but it is an advance in the right direction. This scheme has been a long time in preparation. It has had the advantage of a public inquiry, of representations made, of evidence heard and of argument put. I say that this scheme will benefit not only the industry but also help the consumer to enjoy the products of that industry. I therefore hope that the House, in spite of the criticisms made by hon. Members opposite, will let this scheme come into effect.

11.47 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): The first thing I want to say to hon. Members on this side—with one exception—is that agricultural marketing schemes are an essential part of Government policy. The Labour Party not only passed the original Act in 1931, but it was the 1945 Labour Government that passed the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1949, which brought it up-to-date. Some of my hon. Friends supported the 1949 Act and at least one who has spoken in this Debate supported also the 1931 Act. I shall refer to that later. So, from the very beginning, and contrary to most of the assertions made from these benches, we realised that if schemes were to be successful, then the boards must have adequate powers. Some of the powers the boards will never be called upon to use.
But we also understood and appreciated that the consumers must be adequately safeguarded. It may very well be that the 1931 Act did not provide all the safeguards that some people thought should be provided, but at least it pro-

vided for a Consumers' Council of seven persons, one of whom must be appointed after consultation with the Co-operative movement, for the purpose of watching the development of marketing schemes, and reporting to the appropriate Minister any action that appeared to them to be inimical to the consumers' interests. The Minister was able to submit any such complaints to a committee of investigation, and several cases were submitted to a committee of investigation. A public inquiry was held, all the facts were brought out and on the result of the inquiry the Minister could act.
Under the 1949 Act, quite contrary to all that one would have gathered from the speeches made from these benches, we not only have a consumers' council which can make representations to the appropriate Minister, but any person in the land can complain to the Minister, and if he is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out that the consumers' interests are being adversely affected, he can then submit a complaint from the individual to a committee of investigation on similar lines as the consumers' council.
Moreover, the Minister can appoint not less than two, or not more than one-fifth, of the members of any Board. Throughout the Debate not one solitary Member, from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Coldrick) to the hon. Members for East Ham, North (Mr. DaMes), and Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), has mentioned Section 4 of the 1949 Act. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East, was not sufficiently frank as to mention Section 4 of the Act, where, as is well known by anyone who knows anything at all about the subject, if there is any price determination by a marketing board which the Minister feels is inimical to the interests of the consumers, he has the power to say "stop," and the marketing board cannot go on from that point until, if they so wish, the matter has been submitted to a committee of investigation.

Mr. Daines: The Minister has accused my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East, of lack of frankness in not calling attention to Section 4. Would he not agree that it would have been equally frank for the Parliamentary Secretary to have referred to the main reasons given by the National Farmers' Union when the scheme was promoted, for including the regulation of imports.

Mr. Williams: Like the flowers that bloom in the Spring, that intervention has nothing to do with my references to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East. The burden of his speech was that there were no safeguards for the consumer. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that Section 4 gives the Minister power to call for stop action on the part of any marketing board if any proposal, or contemplated action they may have in mind, involves the consumers' interests. So from that moment the marketing board can do nothing about price determination, or whatever else it may be, until the matter has been dealt with by a committee of investigation. Finally, added to the safeguards of the 1949 Act, any price determination must be notified not only to the Minister of Agriculture but also to the Minister of Food.
It seems to me that these safeguards ought to be sufficient to satisfy the most fastidious. If one tries to import more safeguards into a marketing scheme of this description, then there would not be any marketing scheme. That is quite understood from the point of view of Members representing, as they say, the Co-operative movement, because they have always been hostile to marketing schemes from the very beginning, but I think I ought to quote from the Annual Conference of the Labour Party in 1944 where this resolution was carried unanimously:
The Minister of Agriculture would remain responsible for the Home Producers' Boards under the Agricultural Marketing Act, whose principal functions as defined in that Act would be to organise the sale, the grading, packing. assembly, transport and other market services required, as well as supplying in an organised form many other helpful services for the industry.
The hon. Members contributed to that presumably, and fought their elections on it in 1945 and 1950. We really ought to know whether they are members of the Labour Party or not. If any hon. Member supports the policy and programme of the party outside for election purposes, and then comes to this House for a totally different purpose and opposes the schemes the party is proposing, it is awfully difficult for a Minister-of any party-to do his job. In 1950, in "Let us Win Through Together," we say that steps will be taken to promote more efficient marketing and preparation of agricultural produce, and presumably my hon.

Friends fought their election campaign on those words as well.

Mr. John Hynd: On a point of order. You ruled earlier, Mr. Speaker, that it was out of order to discuss the Acts from which these Measures spring. Is it in order to discuss the party policy from which these Measures spring?

Mr. Williams: I do not propose to discuss Labour Party policy any more, Mr. Speaker. I have at least got in the two points I wanted to do.
Coming to the more immoderate language of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East, I ought to tell the House that on four different occasions I received deputations from Co-operative Members on the tomato and cucumber scheme. The scheme was talked about from top to bottom and inside out, safeguards and all the rest, and I was led to believe that, apart from the fundamental objection of some members of the Co-operative societies, and some members in the higher realms of the movement who have always been opposed to marketing schemes, there was little more we could do to make this scheme acceptable to the Co-operative movement.
I am prepared to accept the theory that some members of the Co-operative party do not like these marketing schemes, but I have been a member of a Co-operative society for 40 years, I am a whole-hearted supporter, and therefore my point of view on marketing schemes is at least equivalent to that of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East—[An HON. MEMBER: "Question."]—It certainly is. The hon. Member asked why farmers did not organise schemes of their own volition, as we do in the Co-operative movement. It is easy for him to say that. The Co-operative movement was made before he was born—

Mr. Coldrick: And before the Minister was born, too.

Mr. Williams: Of course, and it was easy for me to become a member of a Co-operative society already in existence on working people's capital. If the hon. Member insists on using such immoderate language when he makes a speech, he must give the other fellow an opportunity of replying to him. [Interruption.] There is no misrepresentation in what I am


saying. The hon. Member talked about the Advisory Committee not being a real Advisory Committee. The hon. Member for East Ham, North, quoted the Advisory Committee as being one set up by the Board. It is perfectly true that is the case—
The Board shall set up and appoint an Advisory Committee which shall consist of members of the Board and of persons who, in the opinion of the Board, represent the views of wholesale and retail salesmen and processors of tomatoes and cucumbers.
Clearly if outside interests—distributors, wholesalers, retailers and processers—are to form part of the Advisory Committee, it ought to be a useful committee. I have already referred to the safeguards in the 1949 Marketing Act and how they are likely to work out. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East, said that the Minister who will confer this power upon producers will confer anything upon anybody. The hon. Member must remember this is not a Minister conferring a power on anybody. It is the Government who are conferring this power, and they are doing so because they think that power is necessary for the purpose of the scheme.

Mr. Dames: They have something to do.

Mr. Williams: I will accept my full share of responsibility if that will satisfy the hon. Member—because I feel that marketing schemes are necessary. As the hon. Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle) suggested, I believe that ultimately they will mean, not a restriction of production, but an increase of production. They will mean higher efficiency and cheaper prices for the consumer.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-East (Mr. Dye), quoted the case of milk. Was there any restriction in the output of milk when the Marketing Board was set up? It was one of our outstanding successes, as my hon. Friend said, and we are consuming in liquid form 82 per cent. more milk than pre-war. The hon. Member for Lanark (Lord Dunglass), who unfortunately had to leave the House because I believe there is a train on its way north shortly, suggested that I ought to tell his constituents something about imports. I am not going to do that. My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will do that on the appropriate occasion.
The hon. Member for Ealing, North, said fairly that he did not oppose the scheme because he felt it might do good at least from the point of view of organising the producers. The hon. Member was in the House in 1931 and supported the original Marketing Bill, and did so, I believe, because he felt it was the right thing to do. If it was right in 1931, when there were fewer safeguards than in the 1949 Act, it seems to me that his statement that we have failed to take a balanced view cannot be sustained, since we have now inserted far greater safeguards than in the 1931 Act.
Reference was made to "snoopers.' The hon. Member will perhaps remember that the reference to "snoopers" in the scheme is lifted bodily out of the 1931 Act. There is no new language in this scheme. We are doing in 1950 what the hon. Member supported in 1931.

Mr. J. Hudson: I did not refer to "snoopers."

Mr. Williams: Perhaps it was another hon. Member. I apologise if 1 misrepresented the hon. Member in the slightest degree. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Crosland) said that the scheme was not implicit in the 1949 Act. Of course it was, and it was implicit in the 1931 Act. Any scheme dealing with horticulture is implicit in both the 1931 and 1949 Acts. He said the scheme produces a monopoly. That is an easy cheap sneer, but it is not true. He also referred the Lucas Committee and said that we ought not to do this while bigger things are in the offing. What did the Lucas Committee say?—
It has been suggested to us in evidence that there is no place for marketing boards under the Agricultural Marketing Acts in the future of the agricultural community of this country. From this view we dissent. We welcome this enlightened attitude on the part of the agricultural community because we are convinced that the discipline and co-operation of producers in this field is vitally necessary for the success of the new agricultural policy.
That was the view of the Lucas Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North, quoted the figures. I do not think there is anything wrong about the figures, which I will give to show just what this is all about. There are 13,692 producers, of whom 12,473 have


less than half an acre under glass. To expect that number of small producers to organise themselves is a hopeless dream. That is why the Lord Privy Seal realised in 1931 that, unless Parliamentary power was given, schemes of this kind would not be built up. It was suggested that the scheme was for the big producers of tomatoes, but, after all, there are only 488 who have glass between one to three acres. It is true that this constitutes a large part of the acreage, but, as against that, there are these 12,473, with between a quarter to half an acre, who are the people whom we are concerned about, as well as the consumer.
I need say only one other word, and this is on the question of production and consumption. This refers particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn. East. Production of tomatoes in this country has not gone down; it has gone up. Imports have not gone down. They also have gone up. Compared with a home production of 50,000 tons between 1920 and 1924, 123,000 tons were produced in this country in 1948. Compared with 108,000 tons imported in 1924, we imported 205,000 tons in 1948. Therefore, increased home production has gone side by side with increased imports. There is no reason at all, so long as the quality of tomatoes produced in this country is of a high order, why we should not continue to increase production and imports at the same time, and give the consumer a reasonably good article at a cheap price, without returning the agricultural workers to 25s. per week which they were having before the war.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Draft Tomato and Cucumber Marketing Scheme, 1950. a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th July, be approved.

WOOL (PRICES AND MARKETING)

12.8 a.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I beg to move,
That the Agriculture Act (Extension of First Schedule) (Wool) Order, 1950, dated 10th July, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th July, be approved.
This Order is made by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for the Home Department under Section 6 of the Agriculture Act, 1947. Its purpose is to add wool to the produce, listed in the First Schedule to the Act, to which Part I thereof—relating to guaranteed prices and assured markets—applies.
His Majesty's Government have made it a condition, precedent to the adding of wool to the list of commodities for which prices are guaranteed, that producers should devise some suitable cooperative organisation of their own for the efficient marketing of wool and for the administration of the guarantee. The United Kingdom Wool Marketing Scheme was framed on that understanding, and, in addition, it has been agreed with the Farmers' Unions in the United Kingdom, who are sponsoring the scheme, that the following financial arrangements relating to the wool clip shall apply.
At the annual February review the guaranteed average price for fleece wool for the year starting 1st May following will be negotiated. The Government will guarantee this average price per lb. for all wool clipped in that year plus an allowance per lb. for marketing costs. This allowance for marketing will be based initially on the actual costs incurred by the Ministry of Agriculture in the marketing of the United Kingdom wool clip and, for the first five years, will be at the rate of 3¾d. per lb.
The Marketing Board will draw up each year a schedule of maximum prices for each type of wool which will be so calculated as to produce in the aggregate result the average price, exclusive of marketing costs, guaranteed by the Government. If the Board's calculations are inaccurate, it will be at their risk and will not affect the Government's guarantee.
The Marketing Board will maintain complete records of all transactions,


including sales, and will make these available at all times to the Agricultural Departments.
If the proceeds from the sale of wool exceed the amount guaranteed by the Government, the surplus will be dealt with in the following way: if, in any year, there is a surplus, 10 per cent. of that surplus will be retained by the Board and the balance will be placed in reserve. At the end of each period of five years the annual surpluses, in excess of the 10 per cent. to be retained by the Board, and deficiencies will be aggregated and any net surplus will be retained by the Board. The provisions of Section 5 (2) of the Agriculture Act, 1947, will apply to fleece wool as for the commodities mentioned in that subsection to enable minimum prices to be guaranteed ahead.
It is proposed that this Order shall come into operation on 16th October, 1950. This allows time for the Wool Marketing Scheme to be passed through the final stages laid down in the Agricultural Marketing Acts, 1931–49 for the submission and approval of Schemes, and for the Board administering the Scheme to be in a position to assume its responsibilities in connection with the administration of the guaranteed price arrangements. If, for any reason, the Scheme cannot be brought into effective operation by that date, the Ministers will, of course, take such action as regards the operation of this Order as may be necessary.
For the purposes of the Order, "wool" means any wool from sheep and lambs other than skin-wool. Skin-wool is excluded because, under present arrangements, it is the property of the Minister of Food who purchases all sheep and lambs for slaughter and arranges for the subsequent disposal and treatment of the skins taken off in the process of slaughtering; moreover, it is not subject to regulation under the new Wool Marketing Scheme.
Sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 3 of the Order makes all the provisions of Part I of the Act applicable to home-produced wool as defined in the Order. Sub-paragraph (2) lays down the manner in which the provisions of Section 5 of the Act for enabling producers to "plan ahead" shall apply to this produce. The Ministers will be required to determine not only the prices and other factors for

a period of one year beginning after the completion of each annual review held in accordance with Section 2 of the Act but also the "minimum terms for the relevant factors" for a period of two years beginning in the second calendar year after the year in which the review is held. This fixation of minimum terms (i.e. prices and other factors affecting the amounts payable to producers for their produce) will take place following the annual review held in 1950 and in each subsequent alternate year.

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: I understand that this Order will be consequential on the scheme which we are to discuss immediately after this Order is passed. If that is correct, if that scheme does not go through both Houses of Parliament and secure the necessary majority in support, will this Order be rescinded?

Mr. T. Williams: That is correct.

Sir T. Dugdale: This Order puts fleece wool into Schedule 1 of the 1947 Act in exactly the same way as other commodities in Schedule 1 of that Act.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Agriculture Act (Extension of First Schedule) (Wool) Order, 1950, dated 10th July, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th July, be approved.

12.15 a.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNeil): I beg to move,
That the Draft British Wool Marketing Scheme, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th July, he approved.
This scheme has been prepared and submitted in accordance with the Agricultural Marketing Acts of 1931 and 1949; that is to say, it has the same parents as another subject which we discussed earlier. I have no reason to believe, however, that it will engender quite the same amount of heat, although it is always rash to make such predictions in this House.
The scheme seeks power for the regulated marketing of wool in the United Kingdom by a board elected by the producers of wool. In this connection, there is excepted from the United Kingdom the administrative county of Shetland. This is so because there is a scheme for Shet. land at present before the Ministers concerned. Fellmongers, or as we say in


Scotland, skinners, are exempt from registration and so, too, are the producers of wool not having more than four sheep. The promoters of the scheme are the National Farmers' Unions of England and Wales and Scotland, as well as the Ulster Farmers' Union.
We are satisfied that the promoters, as I know the House can agree, are substantially representative of the producers of fleece wool, and a report to this effect has been laid in the terms of the statutes. It was submitted to the appropriate Ministers in October of last year and, under the procedure of the Marketing Act of 1931, the hearing of objections and representations was heard in March last. There was a public inquiry held in Edinburgh from 27th to 30th March, and I would say, in passing, that, although it was held in Edinburgh, it was a national hearing, as the Act provides. The report of the Commissioner who held the public inquiry was received last June and, in the light of that, the Minister of Agriculture and the Home Secretary and I made some minor modifications in the draft scheme.
The Act further provides for an additional safeguard and the persons nominated for the purpose by the promoters of the scheme notified us that they assented to the modifications; and, having satisfied ourselves that the draft scheme in the form now before the House would conduce to the more efficient marketing and producing of wool, we ask for the approval of the House. It is contemplated that the scheme will operate, broadly, on the arrangements for the collection and disposal of the British wool clip which, I think it will be agreed, have operated so successfully since the autumn of 1947 under the control of the Agricultural Departments.
The guaranteed average price for fleece wool for each season will be determined as between the Government and the National Farmers' Unions at the annual February review. On the basis of this guaranteed average price the Board will come to the maximum price possible for each type of wool. All wool will be required to be sold to, or through the agency of, the Board. Every clip tendered to the Board will be valued with reference to the schedule of maximum prices, and the Board will then pay the appropriate

prices to the producer. Any producer not satisfied with the valuation of his wool will be able to appeal to an independent tribunal.
Finally, all wool which has been assembled for sale by the Board will be disposed of by auction as at present. There is one further stage in the proceedings. If the draft scheme is approved, the final act of approval to make the scheme effective rests with the wool producers, who, in terms of the statutes, must, on a poll, record two-thirds majority in favour of the scheme coming into force. The majority refers to those voting, but is weighted in terms of wool produced. The statutory procedure having now been completed up to this stage, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, I submit the scheme for, I hope, approval.

12.21 a.m.

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: The draft scheme which we are now considering, as the House will appreciate, is, in one particular respect, entirely different from the scheme we were discussing previously in that under this scheme, by an Order which this House has just passed, wool will come within the orbit of the annual price review which takes place every February. The Wool Marketing Scheme has, in fact, been born as the result of the wishes of the producers to add wool to the First Schedule of the Agriculture Act which has now been done, and also because they believe by a scheme of this nature there can be made a large and considerable improvement in the marketing of their produce.
My right hon. Friends and hon. Friends on this side of the House can welcome this scheme in general, based, as it is, upon the Agricultural Marketing Acts. We gave our support to the recent Agricultural Marketing Act of 1949. During the Debate on the Third Reading of that Act I stated that we still held the view that efficient marketing must be the complement to efficient production. It is through the medium of the Producers Marketing Board that this can be best achieved. These views have been, from time to time, further put before the country as representing our views in regard to marketing. I do not think at this hour that we need go into them again. This draft scheme


follows this principle. As the Secretary of State for Scotland has explained, it is sponsored by the National Farmers' Unions of England and Wales, of Scotland, and of Ulster, and he is I think, satisfied that these organisations do represent a majority of producers and the products.
I understand however, that there are still certain outstanding points in regard to which there is not complete agreement amongst producers. It is true to say, as the result of the meeting held in Edinburgh in the spring of this year, and to which the Secretary of State for Scotland referred, that certain minor additions and modifications were made to the scheme. But there are still some outstanding points, and I hope that the Board, and indeed the Government will give careful consideration to the differences that exist so that, we hope, they can secure the necessary approval of the majority of producers. I particularly refer, of course, to the one outstanding point of freedom of choice. There are a lot of people who are most anxious about this particular provision of the scheme. On the other hand, on looking through the scheme carefully, I am perfectly satisfied myself that if the Board operates paragraph 71 (3) in the spirit of words in which it is written it will be possible in practically every case to give the consumer a choice of the producers of the wool. I am also satisfied that it would be very difficult to set a hard-and-fast rule and say that on every occasion producers must have the choice of the consumer. I hope the Minister will give this point very careful consideration.
There is another point to which I would draw the attention of the Secretary of State and that is exemptions. Under paragraph 72 of the scheme fellmongers and skinners will be exempt from registration. The wool which comes from the occupation of fellmongers and skinners, I am informed, covers nearly one-third of the total wool crop and, of course, if that were left "in the air" it might very easily jeopardise the whole scheme. At present, this wool is handled by the Ministry of Food. What happens when the Government hand over to the Board? Will th,. Ministry of Food still handle this wool or will they hand it over to the Board for disposal? If not, how do they propose to handle it?
The Minister of Agriculture explained, in outlining the Order which puts wool into the First Schedule of the Agriculture Act, how the finance will operate. What he did not say was where we start. Do we start with the 1949 crop, from which, I think, the Government enjoyed a profit of over £2 million, or do we start with the 1950 crop? If this scheme goes through the Houses of Parliament as approved by the producers then I think it is the 1950 crop. The House and the country should know where the Board start from the financial point of view because, presumably, they have nothing at all until they get some profits from the sale of wool.
In days gone by there was a very great diversity of prices and fluctuation of prices in the marketing of wool. Therefore, producers, if they are to give the best service to the country, must have stability and we believe that this Board, based upon the annual February price review, will give that necessary stability in the interests of producers and consumers of wool and of the country as a whole.

12.29 a.m.

Mr. Snow: There are only two small points to raise, I hope the Government will take into consideration the point of view of some wool producers whom I know. Although it is true to say that during the war the price paid to the domestic producer was substantially in excess of the relative price paid to the Dominion producer, in the post-war period the same principle has not been applied. An organisation which dealt with the disposal of Dominion stock in the United Kingdom did, in fact, secure a very substanial profit and I should have thought it might be a good point to take into account, in future price arrangements, that profits so made should be to some extent ploughed back into this industry.
The other point is this. Although I have studied this document very carefully there does not appear to be in it any reference to the responsibility of the Board for the good husbandry side of the agricultural industry. It may well be argued that this does not come within the purview of the Board at all, but I hold that the more we can encourage the folding of sheep in the Southern Counties, the greater will be the benefit to the agricultural industry as a whole. To that


extent, if it can be arranged that the Board can watch that side of the industry, it would be of great advantage to the country.

12.31 a.m.

Mr. Snadden: Having missed my train through listening to the previous Debate, I feel it is our duty to consider very carefully indeed this very important marketing scheme. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) mentioned the word "stability," and that sums up straight away the object of this scheme. In so far as it concerns Scotland, my hon. and gallant Friend will agree that in Scotland we have a very big stock. About one-third of all the sheep in Britain are in Scotland, and because of our geographical position over one-half of its surface is devoted to sheep.
As well as being relatively far more important to Scotland than England, our sheep set-up is extremely simple. We have only two main basic breeds, the Black-faced and the Cheviots—and their cross breeds—and for that reason the problem of wool making is very much more liable to solution north of the Border than it is in England and Wales. Further, because of its relatively greater bearing on farm incomes, we in the North are particularly anxious that in any such large marketing scheme the vital interests of Scotland should be adequately protected.
This scheme has created great interest in the north and objections have been raised to certain of its provisions. Criticisms have been levelled at Scottish producers for having delayed the scheme, but it is fair to say the reason was because of our large interests. These objections were submitted to a public inquiry because the objectors believed, that by airing their opinions, the efficiency of the scheme in the United Kingdom, as a whole, would be improved. The scheme is approved in principle in Scotland by the vast majority of producers, and there is a general desire, which I personally share, to see it brought into operation at the earliest possible moment.
At the same time, and the right hon. Gentleman knows this very well, there are one or two points which require comment and clarification. I hope that he

will consider them seriously and give me a reply. In the first place, I think it is wrong that in a scheme of this magnitude under the Agricultural Marketing Acts the report of the judicial commission of inquiry should be denied to the House and the country. Neither we in this House nor the objectors know what effect their representations had on the commissioner. Nor do we know what he, in turn, recommended to the Ministry. There is no indication of how far the producers influenced the commissioner, and to what extent his observations have been resisted by the Ministry. What is the objection to publication? Some explanation must be given; otherwise, future inquiries under the Act will be a farce. In any event we are asked tonight to approve this scheme, and we are penalised because of the fact that we know nothing of the report made by the commission.
Secondly, there is some disappointment in Scotland because of the refusal to concede a Scottish committee, considering that Scotland possesses one-third of the sheep population. We are to have an office in Edinburgh and the Welshmen are to have an office in Wales. I would like to ask, without unduly pressing the point, whether it is legally possible for us to have a Scottish board operating within the United Kingdom.
I want to press the next point. Under paragraph (6), one of the special members to be appointed by the Board should represent Scottish interests. Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate that that is the intention? If both these special members are to be English members. Scottish interests will not be properly represented.
I am glad to see that the regional scheme has been altered in two important respects. The basing of regional representation is obviously a far fairer method than electing members on a county basis. It would have been absurd if a county like my own, or Argyll, had been given only one member while a county with only a small number of sheep had the same representation. That concession is welcome, as is also the concession that 10 members of regional committees present will be able to demand a ballot on any topic that has created controversy.
There is considerable apprehension about the effect of paragraph 70 (2).


This appears to exempt skin wool from the operations of the Board. I have nothing whatever against the skinners, but if my interpretation is right skin wool, which amounts to one-third of home wool consumption, will be free on sale, whereas fleece wool will not. This seems a strange position in view of what one of the principal witnesses for the promoters is reported to have said at the inquiry, that the success of the scheme as a whole depended on the inclusion of skin wool.
This point is of considerable importance. At the moment, the skinners are really agents for the Ministry of Food. What will be the position when this control ends? Will the Board be able to handle skin wool in terms of paragraph 70 (2)? As the Ministry of Food is the owner of skin wool, and employs the skinners merely as agents or processors, it is open to the Ministry to hand over all skin wool to the Board and thus to ensure that the Board controls all wool, both skin and fleece.
I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a very straight question: has the Ministry of Food given any assurance that they will hand skin wool to the Board as they have done to the Wool Control up to the present? It is essential that we should know that answer to that question to clear up all the misunderstanding.
In regard to paragraph 71 (3), there is wide disappointment in Scotland about the present system. During the recent Debate on agriculture in the Scottish Grand Committee, I ventured to draw attention to the refusal to allow freedom to the producers under a post-war peacetime marketing scheme to select the merchant to whom they wish to sell their wool. I should have thought that under this scheme the producer would have been free to select a merchant from an approved panel drawn up by the Board. Under the scheme for tomatoes which we have just discussed that right is conceded, but it is denied to wool producers. The paragraph says that due consideration will be given by the Board to this question of choice of merchant; but I do not think that means very much. I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland: can 10 members of regional committees, meeting at annual general meetings, alter the scheme to such an extent as to be able to make a major change in the scheme

and permit a producer to change his merchant?
Finally. I regret that Shetland has been excluded from the scheme. Probably there are reasons. If decent terms had been offered, they might have come into the scheme. Can Shetland, at any future time, still come into the wool marketing scheme? These few points requiring clearing up from the Scottish point of view. Scottish producers approve of this scheme in principle. Some of our objections have not been met, but we agree that the scheme in general will increase the efficiency of our marketing and finally bring wool into the schedule of review commodities under the 1947 Act.

12.43 a.m.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: I much regret that the Debate on this scheme is taking place at such a late hour, so late apparently that neither the Minister of Agriculture nor the Parliamentary Secretary has been able to stay for it. I am sure those Ministers mean no discourtesy and have had to catch trains.

Mr. McNeil: That is not the explanation. My right hon. Friend is in the House and available, and he will be on duty tomorrow too. After a long session he is having the customary cup of tea, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will not grudge him.

Mr. Roberts: I should not like to grudge the Minister a cup of tea after his arduous session with his own so-called supporters, but the Minister of Agriculture has not heard a word of the discussion on this scheme, which I would consider even more important than the last one. I would particularly like him to be present because he recently made some disparaging and offensive references to the agricultural economy of Wales. The first point I want to make is the relation of Wales to this scheme. I would have given the Minister notice, of course, if I had known he would not be present.

Mr. McNeil: I will report to him.

Mr. Roberts: That is usually the attitude of Scottish Ministers to Welsh Members—they will report their speeches to other members of the Government.
It has been stated that Scotland is not satisfied with the position, but at least Scotland has three members on the


Board, whereas Wales has only one—there are five for England and one for Northern Ireland. The sheep population in England is 11 million and in Wales it is 4i million. Had sheep population been taken as the yardstick—

Mr. McNeil: The hon. Member is not arguing for proportional representation of sheep?

Mr. Roberts: I think the right hon. Gentleman misunderstands me.

Mr. Turton: I think the hon. Member will find that representation has strict regard to fleece production.

Mr. Roberts: I agree, but sheep population has been taken as the yardstick for proportional representation in the election of members to the Board within each region, and I should prefer to see it taken as a measure for representation on the Board because of the special importance of sheep and wool production to Wales. I am pleased to see that there is a Welsh member and that his name is published, but I would point out that there is a spelling mistake. We are entitled not to have such mistakes in the production of Government schemes of this character.
My second point has already been made. I too, should like to see freedom of choice of merchants for the producers. The merchants and agents were frozen during the war, and there has been no freedom since for the farmer to make a change. The Board has power, as the scheme is drawn, to give selected merchants a monopoly of handling wool in preparation for sale, which means giving these merchants an advantage. Producer co-operative organisations should be free to deal with the organisations if they can satisfy the Board that they are capable of discharging their duties efficiently as the Board's agents. Such freedom of choice would safeguard the efficiency of the agents and merchants. Paragraph 75 (b) says that the Board may:
Encourage, promote, or conduct agricultural co-operation, research and education in connection with the production and marketing of wool.
I should have thought it would be better to insert the word "shall" for the word

"may." Surely it should be the duty of the Board to encourage all these things?
The last point I wish to make is of a general character regarding the recovery of penalties. At this late hour I will not develop this point, which relates to substantial powers of fining producers. Whether the National Farmers' Union agrees with that or not, I think it is a bad thing. If people offend against the law, they should be dealt with by courts of law. I think producers should have the right of appeal to the courts if they are convicted by these tribunals. I will not develop that further.
All these points might have been developed at greater length, but, subject to reservations on these points, I think I can say that I welcome this wool scheme. It might be thought, because of the amount of time I have spent on criticism, that I do not welcome it; but I think that the advantage to the producers is much greater than the disadvantage of those points which I have criticised.

12.52 a.m.

Mr. Turton: I must say that I think it is an abuse of Parliament that a scheme affecting 100,000 producers should be taken as late as one o'clock in the morning. I am not at all clear whether this scheme is going to be of benefit, because the Secretary of State, when he explained it. used such ambiguous terms. I come from the county which I think has the most sheep. The sheep population of Yorkshire is greater than that of any county in Wales or Scotland.
The problem we have been facing in this country for many years is the chaotic marketing and collection of wool. I want to be satisfied, before I vote for this scheme, that it is going to be the remedy for that sort of thing. We have had a Committee presided over by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) which has examined the whole of this problem of wool marketing, and I am certain that hon. Members in all quarters of the House will pay tribute to the facts collected, and the careful analysis of the position, in that Report.
I personally do not agree with the conclusions. One of the facts brought out in that Report was that in 1939 there were 1,000 collecting agents for wool; there


were 153 different merchants who merely sold the wool and did nothing else with it and there were in England, Wales and Scotland only 126 merchants who bought wool for process or manufacture. It was for this that the producer co-operatives were formed. There were in 1939 four producer co-operatives which collected wool and sold it to those who actually produced or manufactured-toppers or manufacturers. I want to ask what is to be the attitude of the Government and of the Wool Marketing Board towards these producer co-operatives? I was shocked when the Secretary of State said that, broadly speaking, this system of collection and marketing will be carried out on the basis of what happened under Wool Control.

Mr. McNeil: The successful basis.

Mr. Turton: Here are the facts. In 1939 the producer co-operatives were handling 6,750,000 lbs. of wool. That figure had dropped in 1948, the latest date for which I have figures, to 3,750,000 lbs. Today they have a capacity to handle 17 million lbs., which is one-quarter of the whole wool clip. I think it is highly uneconomic if producers are not to be allowed to sell their wool to their own producer co-operatives, who can handle that capacity. In Yorkshire, two years ago, we tried to get a wool permit. Here I must declare my interest. I am not only a sheep breeder, but also a member of a producer co-operative. In 1948, 110 members, of whom I was one, appealed against this direction to send to a merchant and asked instead to send to the producer co-operative society. A tribunal composed of five merchants and five farmers heard the appeal, and the chairman of the tribunal was a merchant from whom 50 per cent. of the applicants wished to change. That tribunal decided in 109 out of 110 cases that no change was to be allowed.
Is that part of the successful method which the Secretary of State wishes to continue? I hope that he will make it clear tonight. On appeal to the Minister in some 50 cases in 1948, they were allowed to go to their produce co-operatives, but 60 were denied what, I think it will be agreed, is elementary justice; and in 1949 and 1950 we have not been allowed that choice of change of merchant.
What is to be the system under paragraph 71 (3) in this scheme? Are we again to have a tribunal which is packed

with merchants who are themselves going to decide whether producers are allowed to change from those merchants? If that is to be altered it will be a very great advantage. Furthermore, are we to have a lifting of the present ban going on through 1948, 1949, and 1950, on the direction of the Minister of Agriculture, against producer co-operatives being allowed to claim that that was a good reason for their change of merchants?
Under this scheme the Board takes power to sell, grade, and transport wool. When this scheme is in operation, we shall not I hope have the uneconomic and wasteful method which is followed at present in the collection of wool; but will have the Board arranging for one collection and grading of wool. Or is this scheme not really going to do that, but going back to the wasteful method of having different merchants collecting the wool and many not even grading it but sending it to other merchants for grading? In my own area there is a village and there are six farms; in two of those the farmers sell their wool to the co-operative and that producer co-operative collects the wool from them. In another farm, the farmer has his wool fetched by the merchant; in another, the farmer is asked to send it by rail to the merchants' town, which happens to be Bradford; and in two other cases, the farmers have their wool sent to different merchants using either their own transport, or having the merchant using his. That is the last thing which we want to continue in a marketing scheme.
If this scheme now before us is to have any value, it should cut out the waste there is at present in the collection and marketing of wool. I believe that the only way—the best way—of securing this is the encouragement, wherever possible, of the producer co-operative system of marketing. That was the origin of these producer co-operatives. In the last three years, they have been hampered in every way by the Ministry of Agriculture and by the system of wool control. That was why I was so alarmed when I heard the Secretary of State talk about the success of the present method of wool control. I do hope he will consider that.
I have only one other small point. The system in wool is unlike that of any other commodity in that after the wool is


clipped there is an increase in weight and not a shrinkage. With most commodities, the longer one keeps them, the smaller they tend to become. In wool, after the clip, there is an increase. Last year we found that in my area that there was an increase of 21 per cent. What I want to find out is to whom will that increase belong? At the present time, under the system of wool control, that increase tends to go to the merchant, in some cases through the wool control, but in no case to the farmer. Will the position under this scheme be that what they call over-weight will go to the producer of the fleece and not to the merchant? After all, surely, this is something that belongs to the producer. It is a matter of some considerable importance.

Mr. McNeil: Mr. McNeil indicated dissent.

Mr. Turton: I understand the Secretary of States denies that.

Mr. McNeil: I think that is one way of putting the statement. As I understand the subject—I do not put my specific experience against that of the hon. Gentleman—this has been reviewed from time to time and the explanation is that at some seasons it does appreciate and at other seasons it depreciates. It depends on the amount of moisture in the clip when it is made, and it seems dialectical to argue to whom the moisture belongs.

Mr. Turton: That is not the position. If a farmer is in a producer co-operative and if that fleece is produced and graded properly, I am informed by those who run the producer co-operatives that this increase of 2¼ per cent. means something like £25,000 to Yorkshire. If they were all allowed in Yorkshire, to join producer co-operatives and sell to them, it is clear that £25,000 would go to the Yorkshire farmers. I gather that the Secretary of State's view is that this is something in the scheme which is to be given as a present to the merchants. If so, I hope he will think about this matter again and get the Wool Marketing Board to go into the question.
I also hope that this is really a scheme for the improvement of the marketing of wool. I heard not one word in the speech of the Secretary of State to show me there was a real intention to get a more economical marketing of wool. It

is not economical to have something in the region of 1,300 different merchants dealing with this wool. We have suffered far too long from that in previous years. We have had systems of small auctions where the farmers have had bad prices. I believe that the right scheme is on producer co-operative, lines, and I do hope that I shall have an assurance which will enable me to vote for this particular scheme.

1.4 a.m.

Major McCallum: I do not want to enter into an argument with my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), as to whether Yorkshire or Argyll holds the biggest number of sheep. As I happen to have served in a Yorkshire regiment and represent Argyll perhaps I can claim credit in both. I, too, want to voice my protest at the fact that this important scheme is being taken at this late hour—it is now after one o'clock in the morning.
A great deal of the criticism of this scheme, which has emanated from Scotland, is, in my opinion, due to lack of publicity. Farmers in many parts of Scotland have not understood what the scheme really is and this Debate will not be reported in the whole of the Scottish Press tomorrow. It will be in Glasgow and Edinburgh, but not in the rural areas where the wool is produced, therefore, I feel that it is very unfair to have this Debate at this late hour.
I want to refer to the question of freedom of choice. I believe I know one of the reasons why the Government and the Board think that there should not be this freedom of choice. It has a great deal to do with transport. The Secretary of State, in his travels about the Highlands, will know, I am sure, that there are many hill sheep-farmers who used to send their wool to certain merchants, including those in the town of Greenock, among others. They have had a life-long connection with those merchants, who were not only merchants but supplied fee dingstuffs, fertilisers, and so on. They used to give quite substantial credits to those same farmers and there was a very considerable understanding between them.
As it has not been explained to the farmers why it is necessary to have this direction of merchants to whom the wool-clip should be sent, I feel that it is not


to be wondered at that farmers, particularly in the Highlands, feel aggrieved in this particular respect. If more publicity had been given to this scheme and if, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) had said, the report of the commission had been made public, then farmers would have understood some of the reasons why it was necessary to prevent the freedom of choice and I do not think that there would have been anything like the criticism there has been.
We were glad to see—and the producers have welcomed it, too—this decision to appoint two representatives on the original committees from those areas and counties which are greater wool producers. There again, if these facts had been stated by the Minister to the agricultural Press in Scotland, for people to read for themselves, then they would have known the doubts and fears expressed about the scheme.
I shall certainly support the scheme and I know that the vast majority of the hill farmers in the Highlands support it. There are, it is true, certain objections but had there been enough publicity, those objections would not have been so serious as they have been. I look forward to this scheme conferring the same benefits on the hill sheep-farmers of Scotland, and of the Highlands in particular, as the milk marketing scheme has conferred on the hill farmers of Scotland.

1.10 a.m.

Mr. John MacLeod: I intend to raise only one small point which occurred to me during the speech of the Secretary of State. As a representative of a large crofting community I am very interested in paragraph 74, which states:
In exercise of the powers set out in paragraphs 70 to 73 of this Scheme, the Board shall have regard to any special conditions affecting the traditional woollen industries of the crofting Counties in Scotland.
The Secretary of State mentioned that a small crofter with four sheep would be exempt from the scheme. Why this figure of four? It is a very small point, but one of great importance to the small producer who is processing his own wool right through to the manufactured tweed. The number should be increased. This is only my personal view, but there is no doubt at all that small producers in the

crofting counties, and I dare say that there are some in other areas of Britain, who process their wool up to the finished state, handle a much greater quantity of sheep. I would like the Under Secretary to explain why this figure was adopted, because I, personally, feel that it is far too small.

1.12 a.m.

Mr. Grimond: As the Secretary of State said, there is a separate scheme under consideration for Shetland. Incidentally, I do not know whether Yorkshire or Argyllshire has the most sheep, but there is no question about which county produces the best wool. This scheme applies only to Orkney and some other islands to the South, but I would like to ask, like the hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) what the position will be if the Shetland scheme falls through. Does it come into this scheme, or will it remain outside altogether?
Wool is rather a special agricultural product, and my feeling is that it matters very much how the scheme is administered. Its success or failure will depend on this. The official poll will be taken before the scheme is actually in operation. That seems to be an odd situation because the producers cannot make up their minds until they know how the scheme is working. I would like to emphasise the great importance of paragraph 73, which gives very wide powers to the Board. They can manufacture or acquire practically anything. It seems to me that they have the power to manufacture locomotives or motor cars, although no doubt, in practice, this will not prove to be a serious consideration.
Could we be told more of what is envisaged under the powers of paragraph 74? Will special consideration be given to sheep clubs, which are of considerable importance in some parts of the Highlands? I would also like to reinforce what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Merioneth (Mr. Emrys Roberts) said about the disciplinary powers of the Board. There is no safeguard for the producer. It is not even necessary for him to be present when the disciplinary board takes action.
Lastly, it has been suggested that it is unfortunate there is no committee for Scotland or for Wales. Under paragraph 84 the Board may convene general or


regional meetings of registered producers. The annual meeting may be held in a place which only a small proportion of producers can reach, and some of the criticism made on the centralisation of this scheme might be removed if the Board were compelled, rather than empowered, to hold the regional meetings at stated times.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Drayson: I should like to welcome the Order which added wool to the First Schedule of the 1947 Act and makes it subject, after the autumn, to the fixed price review. I should also like to know whether the profits which it is estimated will accrue from the current year's clip are to be added to the reserves of the Board, and whether they will start off their first year with the benefit of any profit the Ministry may derive from the price which has been fixed for this year's clip. I understand that the price was not fixed in agreement with the industry, that the National Farmers' Union could not agree, and that it was fixed solely by the Minister of Agriculture. I hope that under this new marketing scheme the difficulties or slight dissatisfaction experienced by producers will be overcome.
In Yorkshire, dissatisfaction was expressed over the price for Swaledale wool, and perhaps that will be one of the points that the new Board will be able to deal with to the general satisfaction. One of the factors which we in Yorkshire cannot help but be acutely conscious of, having the centre of the industry in Bradford, is that, knowing the high prices ruling in the world, farmers have felt from time to time that they have not been getting the full benefit. Under this scheme not only will they have their commodity added to the fixed schedule, which will give them some measure of guarantee, but they will ultimately benefit under the profits that will accrue to the Board.
I would add my word on this question of the choice of merchant. It is an important point, and I hope that the Minister who is to reply will be able to give us some greater assurance. I understand that existing channels of collection will be used and the present methods of appraisement maintained. Does that mean that producers will be able to select their own merchants, with

whom many will have had a life-long connection? They will naturally want to maintain the continuity of service they have experienced. Those are the only two points I want to make. Generally speaking, apart from the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and other hon. Members, the farmers of Yorkshire welcome the scheme and I am glad of the added stability that it will give to their endeavours.

1.20 a.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): I think it is clear that hon. Members want me simply to answer the questions that have been put to me, for nearly everyone has welcomed this scheme. There seems to be no question of the scheme being opposed; indeed it looks as if there were no possibility of the scheme being opposed even if my answers should not prove to be completely satisfactory.
The hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) wondered why the report of the commissioner who conducted the inquiry could not be made public. It is a strange thing that this is the first time he has wondered that. The producers of a certain agricultural commodity get together and promote a scheme under the Agricultural Marketing Act. It is submitted to the appropriate Ministers, who publish the scheme. If objections are lodged, the Ministers must have a public inquiry. They must listen to all the objections, but they cannot listen in person, so they appoint a commissioner to consider the objections and submit a confidential report. On the basis of his report, they may modify the scheme.
The hon. Gentleman said that without this report the effect of the inquiry on the Government could not be known. If one looks at the scheme as first published, and at the scheme as presented to Parliament by +he Minister, one can see how the scheme has been modified since it was first made public. If one is interested, one can also keep in touch with the objectors, as no doubt the hon. Gentleman has done in this case, and can even attend the inquiry and listen to every submission made by objectors. There is no provision in the Act for the publication of the report of the commissioner and I do not think it would be a good thing to introduce such a provision.


I have been asked if Shetland can come into the scheme, if Shetland producers wish. They could have opted to come into this scheme with the rest of the producers. They decided not to do so and to promote a separate scheme for Shetland, which is now before the Ministers concerned. We must not quarrel with them for taking that decision.
The hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) said there had not been enough publicity for the scheme in Scotland, and that if there had been there would not have been all this uncertainty. This is a criticism not of the Government, but of the promoters of the scheme—of the producers themselves. It was up to them to publicise the scheme and get support for it, and not the Government. I do not think we should have influenced the attitude of the producers to this scheme at whatever hour we discussed the question. We are satisfied that the majority are in favour of the scheme, and every Member who has spoken has said so.

Major McCallum: If the few dissenting producers had been able to know about this Debate, they might have agreed.

Mr. Fraser: I do not think they would have read it in the Press in any case, but they can read it in HANSARD if they wish to do so. They will get to know about this scheme as a result of the propaganda campaign the promoters will carry on between now and the taking of the poll. That is how they have got to know about other schemes in the past.
I was asked why there should be this minimum of four sheep to be included in the scheme. I do not know the reason for that. The promoters of the scheme said four sheep, and we accepted it. We would have accepted it if they had said five, or six, and I hope that the House will also be prepared to leave it at that. It was also said that it was very odd that the poll should be taken before the scheme was operated. I should have thought it odd if we had operated the scheme before the poll was taken to see whether the scheme could be operated at all.
This seems to have been the co-operators night out. On the earlier Order the co-operators on this side were criticising the provisions of another marketing scheme, and during the last half hour

Members opposite have been criticising this scheme on much the same grounds. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) claimed that the scheme would not be satisfactory unless the producers had freedom of choice. The hon. Member said that there were too many merchants, and that we wanted efficiency in marketing and distribution. He wanted to build up this colossus. That sounds rather strange coming from the other side. We are always being accused of wanting to eliminate the activities of the small units.
What he said seemed to me to convey a rather unfair impression of the successful applications for a change of merchants during the last two or three years. I find that in 1948 there were 278 applications for a change of merchant, of which 48 were allowed by the advisory committee. There were 98 appeals to the Agricultural Department; 55 of those appeals were allowed. In 1949, there were 144 applications of which 35 were allowed; 32 appealed and of those five were allowed. If one does a little sum on these applications and appeals, it will be found that 32.7 per cent. were successful in 1948 and 27.7 per cent. were successful in 1949. So the machinery which has operated in the last two years does not seem to have had the effect of completely stopping transfer from one merchant to another.

Mr. Turton: Is the hon. Gentleman denying my figure when I said that 110 Yorkshire producers applied in 1948; that only one application was allowed. and that on appeal the Minister quite rightly allowed another 50?

Mr. Fraser: I did not deny that, and 1 will not do so. I have not got the separate figures for Yorkshire. The figures which I gave were for the United Kingdom.
On this question of choice of merchant. it does seem to me to be clear that if the Wool Marketing Board is to do the job for which Parliament is asked to appoint it, it will of necessity require to control the agencies through which the wool shall be marketed. It is up to them to get the most efficient method of marketing the wool. Some considerations have been advanced during the discussion tonight which would weigh in determining through which agency the wool will be marketed.
One must have regard to transport con-siderations; to the ability of the merchant to handle the quantity of wool he may be asked to take, to storage accommodation, and to the merchant's ability to grade the wool, and so on. All these things will have to be taken into account and will, I feel sure, be properly taken into account by the Board. I would have thought that when the amendment of paragraph 71, on page 12, was made in consequence of what was said at the public inquiry, a fair safeguard was pro- vided. That amendment requires the Board to give due consideration to any application by a registered producer re- garding the persons to whom, or the place to which, the wool is to be delivered. Some merchants may say that that is not enough; but I believe the Board must have the ultimate and over-riding control of the agency through which the wool is to be passed.

Mr. Turton: May I ask the hon. Gentleman a specific question on that? It will help us if he will give me a reply. What I want to ask is whether the tribunal to which application is made will have merchants sitting on it, as at present under merchant control?

Mr. Fraser: The answer to that is not given in the scheme. The Board will set up this tribunal, and I cannot tell what the Board will do about the appointment of the chairman and the tribunal. I think it was the hon. Member for West Perth who asked me what would happen if a regional committee decided to give complete freedom of choice. As I under- stand it, the position then would be that the request would go to the Board, and the Board would have to modify the scheme to give this complete freedom of choice. That would mean that the Board would have to go to the Minister. So it is for the committee to make up its mind in the first place.

Mr. Macdonald: Would it not give far greater protection to the producers to have complete freedom of choice?

Mr. Fraser: I do not think it fair for the hon. Member to come into the Chamber at 1.30 a.m. without having heard the earlier part of the Debate, and then ask that question. I have said quite clearly that the Board must have control and

that there cannot be complete freedom of choice of merchant. Otherwise, the scheme would not work.
I was asked about skin wool, and the position of the fellmongers and skinners. Skin wool has to be in this scheme because the Ministry of Food, who own it at present, desire that so long as they do own it, it shall be marketed by the Board. In paragraph 53—dealing with exemptions—fellmongers and skinners will be excluded as registered producers so that, if and when the Ministry of Food gives up its control over livestock and the skins of dead sheep, and they become once again the property of the fell-mongers, then the Board will not be able to dispose of skin wool. It will not become the property of those registered under this scheme.
The position is that skin wool is still in because the Ministry of Food owns the skins and want power to market them. If one could imagine a position obtaining in two or three years' time, when the Ministry of Food no longer owned these skins, but had once again become the property of the skinners and fellmongers—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about livestock?"] If a livestock marketing board was appointed with the approval of the House we would then have to make up our minds whether that Board owned the skins; then the fellmongers would be out of it. Then it would be for the owners of the skins to determine how they are to be marketed; if they wanted it that way, it could be done but, if not, the Board would not do it.
One has the impression that the objections to this scheme are that hon. Members do not want the skin wool to be so marketed. In the circumstances, skin wool would not be marketed, and one-third of the wool would be taken out of the control of the Board with the producer's consent. I hope that I have dealt with the position of what would happen if the Ministry of Food no longer owned the skins.
The other point about which I was asked by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, who talked about appreciation in the weight of wool while in store, was one on which I have already consulted what I think is the most expert opinion. I am told that from season to season—as implied in the interruption by him—this changes. In one year, one will


get an appreciation and in another year, if the wool is kept in damp or wet condition, one will get a depreciation, a lessening of the weight while wool is in store. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, asked who was to get the financial benefit of the income derived from the price got for the moisture that is sold. I understand that from year to year the position alters.

Mr. Turton: Who gets it?

Mr. Fraser: Whoever is holding it at the time it increases in weight will,get the benefit. If it should decrease in weight the person also makes the loss. That is the position. Likewise, with grain at the present time. If grain is stored at a price per cwt., is bought out of store, loses or increases in weight, and is sold at the same price a loss or profit is made in consequence of that. I think that hon. Gentlemen, even though they have expressed some reservations about the scheme, appreciate that it cannot now be amended. It has either to be accepted or rejected, and I think it is the unanimous desire of hon. Members present that this scheme should be accepted.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Draft British Wool Marketing Scheme, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th July, be approved.

MILK MARKETING SCHEMES, SCOTLAND

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move,
That the Draft Aberdeen and District Milk Marketing Scheme (Application to Banff) Order, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th July, be approved.
I do not think I need say anything in moving this motion. It is a straightforward Order, and I feel that the House is ready to accept it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Draft North of Scotland Milk Marketing Scheme (Application to Moray and Orkney) Order, 1950, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th July, he approved."—[Mr. Fraser.]

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Royle.]

Adjourned accordingly at Eighteen Minutes to Two o'Clock.